Skip to main content
Top

Preparation and Properties of Fayalite (Fe2SiO4) Synthetic Copper Slags with Fe/SiO2 Ratios from 1.5 to 2.3

  • Open Access
  • 24-10-2025
  • Original Research Article
Published in:

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This study focuses on the preparation and properties of synthetic copper slags with Fe/SiO2 ratios ranging from 1.5 to 2.3. The research employs a variety of analytical techniques, including SEM/EDS, XRD, Mössbauer spectroscopy, XAS, FTIR, and Raman spectroscopy, to investigate the microstructural and structural characteristics of these slags. Key findings include the identification of two types of fayalites—crystalline and defected—and the presence of magnetite in varying amounts depending on the Fe/SiO2 ratio. The study also explores the impact of oxygen activity during cooling on the phase composition of the slags. Additionally, the research discusses the practical implications of these findings for the design of protective high-temperature resistant freeze linings and the development of environmentally friendly Cr-free refractories. The conclusions highlight the potential of slags with specific Fe/SiO2 ratios for enhancing the performance of refractory materials in copper metallurgy.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

In 2023, copper smelters globally produced about 26.5 million tons of refined copper, and this was contributed mainly by Asia (60 pct), followed by America (15 pct), Europe (14 pct), Africa (9 pct), and Oceania (2 pct), where Poland was the 9th worldwide largest producer with 0.6 MT generation of refined Cu.[1] In the last 20 years, annual demand for copper has doubled (tripled in the last 50 years), and the forecast shows that the demand will be doubled again up to 2030. This will be driven by a worldwide demand for green energy installations, electric vehicles and modernization of the power grids.[1]
Poland has one of the purest chalcopyrite (CuFeS2)-bornite (Cu5FeS4) copper ores which contain 1.47 pct Cu,[2] second only to Congo (2.35 pct Cu) and three times purer than China ores (0.49 pct Cu) where the most copper is smelted.[3] However, the global depletion of copper ores[4,5] alters the slag chemistry, which affects both the slag refining capacity and the performance of refractory linings.
Therefore, knowledge on chemistry and physical properties of slags is important both for slag engineering and maintenance of refractories lifetime as well as development of new refractories. Characterization of slags properties is also valuable for their valorization, especially since about 2.8 t of slag is generated for 1 t of produced Cu. This generates about 40 mln tons of slags each year, with 30 pct of them being landfilled posing long-term environmental hazards.[6] Poland produces greatest amounts of copper slag in Europe, and this slag contain increased contents of elements destructively impacting refractories, like Pb (min. 3.1 pct[7] vs worldwide average 0.3 pct[8]), and others like As, Sn, Ni, Zn, being recently deeply studied.[9]
Copper metallurgy uses primarily fayalite (Fe2SiO4) slags in Cu refining processes in various devices such as flash furnaces or converting processes.[10] Fayalite slags have the chemical composition depending on specific plant conditions, typically represented by 45.4 ± 13.9 wt pct Fe2O3, 30.4 ± 9.5 pct SiO2, 5.9 ± 9.4 pct Al2O3, 4.8 ± 5.1 pct CaO, 2.3 ± 2.2 pct ZnO, 1.9 ± 2.0 pct MgO and several minor components (< 1 pct) including 0.9 ± 0.7 pct CuO and 0.3 ± 0.4 pct Pb.[8,9] From mineralogical point of view, fayalite (Fe2SiO4) and magnetite (Fe3O4) constitute the main phase components, with remaining phases of versatile stoichiometry.[11] Physical and chemical properties of copper slag shall balance the requirements of both good Cu refining properties and maintaining performance of refractory lining, though they frequently act contrarily. The typical values of key physical properties of close-to-stoichiometric fayalite (Fe2SiO4, Fe/Si = 2) slag are ~0.08 Pa·s viscosity (at 1250 °C),[12] ~3.7 g/cm3 density (1300 °C),[13] ~0.4 N/m surface tension (1300 °C),[14] ~120 S/m electrical conductivity (1300 °C).[14] They depend on both chemical composition and conditions during operation, with main temperature and oxygen partial pressure. The role of multiple oxides on viscosity of fayalite slags has been extensive studied, like CaO,[11,15] MgO,[16] FeO and Fe2O3,[17] ZnO,[18] Al2O3,[19] Cr2O3,[20] Na2O.[21] Although there are many works on physical properties of fayalite slags,[1214,2225] there is a lack of literature on microstructural characterization of fundamental composition FeOx-SiO2-based slags integrated with their comprehensive structural characterization.
Slags significantly impact the performance of refractory lining in copper smelting and converting furnaces. Currently, magnesia-chrome refractories (MgO-Cr2O3) are widely used in most copper processing furnaces,[26,27] despite their cancer-inducing character caused by the formation of water-soluble hexavalent chromium compounds during work.[28] Therefore, new Cr-free refractories are sought. Jastrzębska et al. showed the corrosion mechanism of several potential Cr-free materials against fayalite slags with Fe/SiO2 ratios of 1.5 ÷ 2.2,[29] and found the formation of stable imperious protective layers at interfaces, with their mineral composition also dependent on Fe/SiO2 ratio in slag. Based on the investigation of individual fayalite slags and slags after their contact with refractory, the consistent shift in equilibrium phases in these slags was found from <fayalite> to <magnetite + glass>, respectively.[29] This phenomenon was also confirmed in further examinations with multiple Cr-free oxide and spinel materials.[30] Based on that, comprehensive characterization of simple composition fayalite slag is needed to predict refractory behaviour and its potential protection mechanism, which is so far lacked in literature.
Therefore, this work presents a procedure for producing fayalite slags from a FeOx-SiO2 system with Fe/SiO2 ratios in range from 1.5 to 2.3 using melting method in a graphite crucible. Subsequently, the produced slags were subjected to comprehensive microstructural analysis by SEM/EDS, and structural analysis by XRD, Mössbauer spectroscopy, FTIR and Raman spectroscopy. For the first time, X-ray absorption (XAS) spectra of fundamental composition fayalite slags were showed in this work using synchrotron radiation. This compiled work aims to serve as a benchmark for future researches on more chemically complex copper slags engineering and corrosion of environmentally friendly Cr-free refractories (for copper, lead, zinc and steel industries) and to advance the freeze-lining concepts in refractories. Moreover, it can contribute to exploration of famous ancient Polish slags, like those from Świętokrzystkie voivodeship,[31] and better recognition of olivine minerals, both terrestrial and extraterrestrial, to gain a better understanding of the evolution of Earth and other planets.

Materials and Methods

Slag Design

In this work, three types of fayalite slags were prepared with different Fe/SiO2 ratios of targeted values between 1 and 2.5 which encompass most of the copper slags generated during the converting process in a typical Pierce-Smiths converter.[1]
The following lab-grade chemicals were used for the preparation of synthetic slags: SiO2 (96.5 wt pct, POCH, amorphous according to XRD) and lab-grade Fe2O3 hematite (Chempur, 97.2 wt pct Fe2O3, 0.51 pct Al2O3, 0.40 pct MnO, 0.10 pct SiO2 and 0.10 pct CaO), with a grain size d50 7.3 µm, LOI +2.668 pct, containing only α-Fe2O3 based on 96-210-1170, COD database). The starting chemical composition of the slag based on the purity of the raw materials is presented in Table I. XRF composition was measured using WDXRF Axios mAX spectrometer (PANalytical), equipped with a 4 kW Rh lamp on powdered (< 63 µm) slag samples.
Based on the pseudo-binary phase diagram “Fe2O3”-SiO2 in air,[32] liquid phase forms in this system at 1740 °C and it decreases to 1140 °C for the Fe3O4-SiO2 system,[33] proving the key role of the Fe2+/Fe3+ ratio in these slags. Additionally, as shown by Hidayat et al.[32] lowering the oxygen partial pressure from 0.21 (air) to 10−6 will further reduce the formation of liquid from 1400 °C to 1200 °C, respectively. In this work a simple method was developed to produce slags experimentally, through heating the oxide mixture in a graphite crucible, which reduces the partial oxygen pressure through CO formation and allows the oxide mixture to melt faster. In such conditions, Fe2O3 easily reduces to magnetite, (Fe3+)(Fe2+Fe3+)2O4, which further reduces to wüstite, FeO[34] followed by its subsequent reaction with SiO2 to form fayalite, Fe2+2SiO4, a main component of copper slags targeted in this work. Thus, conditions to produce copper slag in a relatively simple and resource efficient way developed in this work was heating the oxide mixture (Fe2O3+SiO2) in a graphite (C) crucible at temperature above 1200 °C, as described in the next part.

Slag Preparation

The raw material starting mixture for slags with three different targeted Fe/SiO2 ratios of 1.2, 1.6 and 1.9, and their respective chemical composition are presented in Table I. The mixture was first homogenized for 2 hour in a ball mill using 10 mm diameter ZrO2 balls and ZrO2 bawl, with a material-to-milling media weight ratio of 1:1. 150 g of homogenized loose powder mixture was placed into a graphite crucible (height 100 mm, external diameter 91 mm, internal diameter 61 mm) covered with a 10 mm thick heat-resistance 301 stainless steel.
The empty furnace was preheated at 3 °C/min to 1280 °C under 1 atm of air, then the crucible filled with the Fe2O3+SiO2 mixture (Table I) was quickly inserted into a furnace chamber and held for 30 minutes to completely melt the powder mixture. Then, the crucible was discharged from the furnace, lid was removed, and graphite crucible was carried using a steel tong and the liquid slag was poured onto a stainless-steel plate to air-quench, simulating the solidification process of air-cooled copper slags dumped into cooling pits before grinding.[9,35] The slag cooling rate during pouring was about 200 °C/min.
Figures 1(a) and (b) show the graphite crucible before and after slag melting. Figure 2 presents macroimages of air-cooled synthetic copper slags produced in this work. Their optical microscopy images are presented in Figure 3, which show elongated arrow-like crystals of fayalite (Fe2SiO4) and cubes of magnetite (Fe3O4), which will be further confirmed by SEM-BSE and other experimental methods, and the glassy part can be seen on right image of slag S1.5 [Figure 3(a), right magnified image]. The produced slags were dark grey in color and brittle when crushed by hand. The graphite crucible lost about 2 pct of its initial wall thickness after slag melting which was the effect of graphite oxidation at elevated temperatures that lowered the oxygen activity. Pre-trial melting of slag under the same conditions but using 20 mm and 10 mm height pressed pellets instead of a loose powder mixture did not result in melting.
Table I
Starting Chemical Composition (Wt Pct) of Slags with Different Fe/SiO2 Weight Ratios Based on the Purity of Raw Materials, Iron Oxide was Recalculated to Ferrous Oxide
Slag No.
FeO
SiO2
Fecalc
Fe/SiO2
FeO/SiO2
1
60
40
47
1.2
1.5
2
67
33
52
1.6
2.0
3
71
29
55
1.9
2.5
Fig. 1
Graphite crucible with raw powder mixture (a) before melting, (b) after melting at 1280 °C in air (an additional lid was placed on top of the crucible during melting)
Full size image
Fig. 2
Macroscopic images of air-quenched synthetic fayalite slags of different actual Fe/SiO2 ratios
Full size image
Fig. 3
Optical microscope images of air-quenched synthetic fayalite slags with different Fe/SiO2 ratios, showing arrow-shaped elongated grains of fayalite, and 1 mm cubic magnetite crystals (images captured using Keyence VHX optical microscope)
Full size image

Slag Examination Methods

Table II presents the actual chemical composition of synthetic slags determined by XRF. The actual Fe/SiO2 ratios of molten fayalite slags were found to be higher (1.5, 2.0, 2.3, Table II) compared to the starting values (1.2, 1.6, 1.9, Table I). Excessive temperature or too intense reducing conditions (presence of CO) during slag melting could result in the formation of metallic Fe, which would be unbeneficial in this work, as metallic Fe is not present in typical copper-converting slags. Because no metallic Fe was detected in this work, we conclude that the designed process to produce synthetic slag was successful. Moreover, the obtained range of Fe/SiO2 ratios (1.5 ÷ 2.3) is relevant and accurately reflects the real Fe/SiO2 ratios found in copper slags during the converting process.[10,36] The actual Fe/SiO2 ratios were subsequently used to designate the produced fayalite slags as S1.5, S2.0 and S2.3.
Table II
Chemical Composition (Wt Pct) of Produced Copper Synthetic Slags with Different Fe/SiO2 Weight Ratios, by XRF (in Room Conditions, Air)
Slag No.
Slag Name
Fetot
Fe2O3
SiO2
Actual Fe/SiO2
1
S1.5
47.34
68.34
31.66
1.5
2
S2.0
51.43
74.16
25.84
2.0
3
S2.3
53.02
76.56
23.44
2.3
Test
In the next part, synthetic slags S1.5, S2.0 and S2.3 were subjected to comprehensive analysis and characterization of their structure and microstructure. Room temperature X-ray diffraction (XRD) was applied to evaluate the crystalline nature and identify the phase components in synthetic slags using an Empyrean diffractometer (PANalytical) with a diameter of goniometer of 240 mm, producing Cu-Kα radiation and operated within the 2θ range of 10–90°. Peak matching and phase quantification were performed using the Rietveld refinement method applying X’Pert High Score Plus software.
The microstructures of slags were analyzed using a Scios 2 DualBeam scanning electron microscope (SEM) (Thermo Fisher Scientific) in backscattered electron (BSE) mode. For each slag, panoramic SEM images were registered, covering the entire cross section of the obtained slag from the bottom to the top part of the slag, corresponding to areas in direct contact with a steel plate onto which it was poured and the top part, respectively. The cross-sections of the refractory samples were prepared by traditional ceramographic technique, followed by 10 nm carbon layer sputtering to ensure electrical conductance. Energy dispersive spectrometry (EDS) analysis was conducted to determine the composition of the different phases present in the synthetic slag samples.
57Fe Mössbauer spectroscopy measurements under room conditions were conducted on synthetic slags in transmission geometry using the RENON MsAa-4[37] spectrometer equipped with the LND Kr-filled proportional detector and the 57Co(Rh) source. The absorbers were prepared by mixing about 15 mg/cm2 of slag sample with 50 mg/cm2 of fine B4C powder to ensure a random distribution of the investigated materials. The data from measured spectra was processed using the Mosgraf software suite within the transmission integral approximation. The isomer shifts (IS) are reported relative to the isomer shift of α-Fe.
The powder samples of synthetic slags, along with pristine starting oxides (Fe2O3, SiO2), were analyzed by X-ray absorption spectroscopy (XAS) at room conditions to investigate the local cation environment using PIRX beamline[38] at the SOLARIS National Synchrotron Radiation Centre in Kraków, Poland.[39] PIRX beamline is a bending magnet source beamline that provides soft X-ray energies in the range of 100–2000 eV, equipped with a plane grating monochromator with a resolving power of ΔE/E better than 2.5 × 10−4. The samples, in the form of powder, mounted on a carbon tape, were measured at Fe L2,3 edges and Si K edge. The photon energy range used in the experiment was selective for binding energies of Fe: L2-719.9 and L3-706.8, and Si: K-1839 eV.[40] The measurements were conducted in Total Electron Yield (TEY) detection mode, at room temperature and under high-vacuum conditions (10−8 mbar). XAS spectra are highly sensitive to interactions with neighbouring atoms and their chemical states, so even small changes in the chemical environment (e.g., coordination, oxidation state) are reflected in energy shifts and relative intensity changes of spectral features. The collected spectra were normalized to a unit step using open-source data analysis software Python MultiChannel Analyzer (PyMCA).[41]
The viscosity of slags was calculated based on their chemical composition (Table I) in temperature range 800 ÷ 1400 °C in air using FactSage[42] ver. 7.3. This software contains the Viscosity module which allows for precision modelling of viscosity of silicate melts containing iron oxides under oxidation conditions that very well reproduce experimental viscosity data.[4345] The liquid slag viscosity calculated using FactSage is described by the Modified Quasichemical Model (MQM)[44,45] considering the network-breaking structure of silicate melt.
FTIR spectra were measured in the mid-infrared range at room conditions using a Bruker Optics-Vertex70V spectrometer. The sample was prepared using the tablet method in KBr. The absorption spectra were recorded over 128 scans with a resolution of 4 cm−1, within the range of 1400–400 cm−1.
Raman spectra of phases were obtained on the polished cross-section using LabRAM HR (HORIBA JobinYvon) spectrometer with an excitation wavelength of 532 nm. The diffraction grating was 1800 lines/mm. Raman spectrometer was equipped with an Olympus light microscope which allowed the selection of microarea for local Raman spectra collection. For further interpretation, both Raman and FTIR spectra were processed only to incorporate baseline using the SpectraGryph software 1.2.16.1 applying the adaptive mode of baseline setting.

Results and Discussion

Phase Identification by XRD

Figures 4(a) through (f) present XRD patterns of synthetic slags with different Fe/SiO2 ratios for characteristic reflexes of phases, while Table III summarizes the results of their Rietveld refinements. As can be seen, slags are predominantly crystalline in nature, which results from a relatively low cooling rate (approximately 200 °C/min) during the free cooling process after the molten slag was poured onto the steel plate. This is consistent with many industrial copper slags that are also crystalline after air cooling.[9]
Fig. 4
Phases identified in the XRD pattern of synthetic slags (a) Fe2SiO4, (b) Fe3O4, and patterns showing no presence of silica in the form of (c) quartz SiO2, (d) tridymite SiO2, (e) cristobalite SiO2, (f) ferrosilite FeSiO3. The grey vertical line indicates the position of the respective ICDD standard
Full size image
Table III
Rietveld Refinement Results of Synthetic Fayalite Slags
Name
Phase
ICDD
Phase content, by weightpct
Rwp/GF
S1.5
Fayalite
04-007-9022, Fe2SiO4
100.0
1.85/1.02
S2.0
Fayalite
a. 04-007-9022, Fe2SiO4
86.1
 
Magnetite
01-080-6402, Fe3O4
13.9
1.82/0.97
S2.3
Fayalite
04-007-9022, Fe2SiO4
82.4
1.88/1.03
Magnetite
01-080-6402, Fe3O4
17.6
 
Rwp-weighted R profile, GF-goodness of fit
The XRD patterns of slag S1.5 contained only reflexes characteristic for fayalite (Fe2SiO4, ICDD PDF no. 04-007-9022), while slag S2.0 and S2.3 revealed additional reflexes corresponding to magnetite (Fe3O4, ICDD PDF no. 01-080-6402) with 13.9 and 17.6 wt pct Fe3O4, respectively. Their most intensive reflexes were presented in Figures 4(a) and (b). Fayalite is the targeted phase in produced slags, while magnetite is formed due to Fe2+ and Fe3+ coexisting in equilibrium during cooling of slag in air. In actual copper fayalite slags magnetite content typically reaches up to 17 pct.[36] Silica was not present in any of synthesized slag as shown by the absence of 100 pct intensity reflex at 26.651° (quartz ICDD PDF no. 00-033-1161), 20.619° (trydymite ICDD PDF no. 01-071-0261) and 21.987° (cristobalite ICDD PDF no. 01-087-7049) as shown in Figures 4(c) through (e). Similarly, there was no 100 pct intensity reflex of ferrosilite (FeSiO3, ICSD PDF no. 01-082-1832) as shown by Figure 4(f).
The dominant fayalite phase in slags has olivine (M2SiO4, M = Ca,Mg,Fe,Mn) orthorhombic structure (space group Pnma). In this structure, oxygen atoms are arranged in a hexagonal closed-packing, with Si4+ ions occupying tetrahedral sites (4c) while Fe2+ locate in two different octahedral sites: position 4a (M1) with symmetry \(\overline{1 }\) and Fe-O bond length of 2.158 Å, and position 4c (M2) with symmetry m and Fe-O bond length of 2.178 Å.[46,47]
Fayalite phase was generated through the reduction of ferric oxide (Fe2O3) at high temperatures to ferrous oxide (FeO), which subsequently reacted with SiO2 forming fayalite (Fe2SiO4) upon cooling below the crystallization point of 1205 °C, according to reactions Eqs. [1] through [3]. The reduction process was facilitated by the graphite (C) crucible which lowered the oxygen partial pressure during melting of a raw mixture (via CO formation) thereby promoting the dissociation of hematite.[32,34] Higher Fe2O3 content (or Fe/SiO2 ratio) in slag leads to an exponential increase in pO2 at a specific temperature.[32] As reported by Jastrzębska et al.[48] hematite undergoes reduction through the initial formation of maghemite (γFe2O3, cubic, iron at 3+ oxidation state only) which then transforms into inverse spinel magnetite (Fe3+)(Fe3+,Fe2+)2O4[48] and can be further reduced to FeO. From values of Gibbs energies of formation at 25 °C based on,[49,50] reaction Eqs. [1] and [3] are spontaneous (negative ΔG), and this trend is maintained at least up to 1500 °C as visualized in.[11] So, based on thermodynamics Fe3O4 and Fe2SiO4 are most likely to crystallize after pouring the slag onto the steel plate and cooling to room temperature, while FeO formation is excluded due to positive ΔG. As visualized by Zhang et al.[11] the pO2 stability window of FeO phase at 1300 °C is very narrow from 10−8.64 to 10−10.82 atm (and even narrower < 1300 °C), thus it is beyond the typical range of pO2 in actual converting process of 10−7.8 to 10−6.4 atm. At converting temperature of 1300 °C, magnetite is stable in a very wide pO2 range of 10−9 to 10−2 atm.
$$ 3\,{\text{Fe}}_{2} {\text{O}}_{{3\left( {\text{s}} \right)}} + {\text{CO}}_{\left( g \right)} \to 2{\text{ Fe}}_{3} {\text{O}}_{{4\left( {\text{s}} \right)}} + {\text{CO}}_{{2\left( {\text{g}} \right)}} {-} 49.9\,{\text{kJ}} $$
(1)
$${\text{Fe}}_{3}{\text{O}}_{4(\text{s})}+{\text{CO}}_{(g)}\to 3{\text{FeO}}_{(\text{s})} +{\text{CO}}_{2(\text{g})}+1.3\text{ kJ}$$
(2)
$$ 2{\text{FeO}}_{{\left( {\text{s}} \right)}} + {\text{SiO}}_{{2\left( {\text{s}} \right)}} \to {\text{Fe}}_{2} {\text{SiO}}_{{4\left( {\text{s}} \right)}} {-}27\,{\text{kJ}} $$
(3)

Microstructural Analysis on Panoramic Images by SEM/EDS

Figures 5, 6, 7 present SEM microstructures of synthetic slags with different Fe/SiO2 ratios (S1.5, S2.0 and S2.3) in both panoramic views and selected magnified zones. The bottom and top indications at the images designate the part of the slag that was in contact with heat-resistant steel (10 mm thick, 309 stainless steel) after pouring the liquid slag on, and the upper part exposed to air during cooling, respectively. The panoramic view shows the cross-section of the entire molten slag sample, ranging from the bottom area to the top area. The EDS chemical analysis in microareas of different slag zones is given in Tables IV, V, VI.
Fig. 5
SEM panoramic images of slag S1.5 (Fe/SiO2 = 1.5)
Full size image
Fig. 6
SEM panoramic images of slag S2.0 (Fe/SiO2 = 2.0)
Full size image
Fig. 7
SEM panoramic images of slag S2.3 (Fe/SiO2 = 2.3)
Full size image
Table IV
Point EDS Composition in At Pct of S1.5 Slag with Corresponding Phases Marked in Fig. 5; n Denotes the Number of EDS Spectra Taken to Analysis
Designation
O
OD
F
S
Appearance
Bright grey
dark grey
bright at surface and in volume
dark in volume
Name of Phase
fayalite (Fe2SiO4)
defected fayalite
iron oxide (Fe3O4)
silica (SiO2)
Additional
close to stoichiometric
Fe-poor
n
8
6
2
7
Fe
17.5 ± 1.3
14.7 ± 1.2
38.4 ± 1.1
6.1 ± 2.5
Si
11.4 ± 0.7
12.4 ± 1.2
3.6 ± 0.4
20.5 ± 2.9
Al
0.3 ± 0.1
0.3 ± 0.0
0.3 ± 0.0
O
70.9 ± 1.2
72.7 ± 2.1
58.0 ± 1.5
73.3 ± 1.0
Fe/Si
1.5 ± 0.1
1.2 ± 0.1
 
Table V
Point EDS Composition in At Pct of S2.0 Slag with Corresponding Phases Marked in Fig. 6; n Denotes the Number of EDS Spectra Taken to Analysis
Designation
O
OD
F
Appearance
bright grey
dark grey
bright at surface
Name of Phase
fayalite (Fe2SiO4)
defected fayalite
iron oxide (Fe3O4)
Additional
close to stoichiometric
Fe-poor
n
10
9
 
Fe
20.1 ± 0.8
16.6 ± 0.9
26.9 ± 5.0
Si
11.7 ± 0.5
12.2 ± 0.7
0.5 ± 0.7
Al
0.1 ± 0.1
0.1 ± 0.1
O
68.0 ± 1.3
70.9 ± 0.7
72.3 ± 4.4
Fe/Si
1.7 ± 0.0
1.4 ± 0.1
Table VI
Point EDS Composition in At Pct of S2.3 Slag with Corresponding Phases Marked in Fig. 7; n Denotes the Number of EDS Spectra Taken to Analysis
Designation
O
OD
F
Appearance
bright grey
dark grey
bright at surface
Name of the Phase
fayalite (Fe2SiO4)
defected fayalite
iron oxide (Fe3O4)
Additional
close to stoichiometric
Fe-poor
n
9
9
14
Fe
20.9 ± 1.4
16.3 ± 2.1
28.4 ± 4.5
Si
11.4 ± 0.9
14.0 ± 1.4
3.1 ± 4.3
Al
0.2 ± 0.1
0.1 ± 0.1
0.1 ± 0.1
O
67.5 ± 0.8
69.6 ± 1.3
68.3 ± 1.6
Fe/Si
1.9 ± 0.3
1.2 ± 0.2
All slags were primarily fayalite-based as expected and were previously verified by XRD [Figure 4]. However, in all slags two distinct types of fayalites (O and OD) were detected, having different Fe/Si ratios based on EDS measurements, which were not distinguished by XRD.
The first type fayalite O, which was the dominant phase in all slags, exhibited a very elongated morphology with crystal lengths exceeding 1 mm due to the characteristic dendritic growth under rapid cooling conditions. The O fayalite grains were more developed in slags with higher Fe/SiO2 ratios, which can be explained by the higher iron content, which supports the better development of fayalite grains (Fe/Si = 2.0). OD appeared as a secondary phase represented by dark grey areas between and adjacent to O grains. O phase in all slags had a higher Fe/Si ratio than OD phase with its average values of 1.6, 1.7 and 1.9 for S1.5, S2.0 and S2.3, respectively; and 1.2 and 1.4 for S1.5, S2.3 and S2.0, respectively. So, both phases (O, OD) had lower Fe/Si ratios than in the stoichiometric fayalite of 2. The presence of these two phases results from oxidation of Fe2+ in fayalite during slag cooling in air. During cooling (from 1280 °C to 25 °C) oxygen activity in air increases, divalent iron in fayalite oxidizes to trivalent iron (Fe2+→Fe3+). This destabilizes fayalite phase as evidenced by formation of defected fayalite OD phase (Fe3+ and vacancy containing ferrifayalite or laihunite as shown in[5153]), which could also consist of a mixture of very fine defected fayalite,[51] magnetite and Si-rich glass, similarly as presented in.[52] 100 pct intensity peak of ferrifayalite at 25.6° (ICDD PDF 01-078-1435) and laihunite at 25.7° (ICDD PDF 01-085-1418) were however not registered by XRD. Nevertheless, the presence of OD phase was observed in all tested slags so it cannot be explained simply by changes in Fe/SiO2 ratio in slags that would result in a release of SiO2 forming glass. In addition, very fine (< 1 µm) dark nanoareas are seen in fayalite O, indicating initiation of fayalite destabilization. Although Fe/Si in both phases (O and OD) is lower than in stoichiometric fayalite (2), they were assigned to the Fe2SiO4 based on results of further examination, and OD phase was considered highly disordered due to interactions with oxygen during cooling. The presence of SiO2 (S) and Fe3O4 (F) directly adjacent to OD phase near the top part of S1.5 slag (increased pO2 compared to bottom part) shows that they are decomposition products of fayalite OD (Figure 5, right). Zhang et al.[11] also suggested this course of gradual decomposition of fayalite due to increased pO2. They also showed for slightly more complex fayalite slag with Fe/Si of 2.0, that Fe3O4 content was even 10 times higher when pO2 increased from 10−9 to 10−6 atm reaching a value close to 40 wt pct.
The interaction of oxygen from air with slag is also verified by different thicknesses of magnetite (F) layer on top and bottom sides of slag, as shown in Table VII. The bottom side was in direct contact with stainless steel, while the top was in contact with air, resulting in thickness differences. For S1.5, the thickness of Fe3O4 layer was 0.5 ± 0.1 µm on both top and bottom sides (though the destabilization via presence of OD phase was more pronounced from the middle to the top side of slag). For the rest of slags, Fe3O4 layer was thicker at top of 2.4 ± 1.0 and 11.7 ± 4.9 µm, and thinner at bottom of 0.9 ± 0.3 and 1.4 ± 0.5 µm for slags S2.0 and S2.3, respectively. This evidences the impact of increased pO2 during cooling of slags in air, similarly, as shown in.[11]
Table VII
Characteristic of Microstructure Elements in Synthetic Fayalite Slags, Corresponding to Figs. 5, 6, 7
Slag
S1.5
S2.0
S2.3
Thickness of the Magnetite (Fe3O4) Layer
Top
0.5 ± 0.2
2.4 ± 1.0
11.7 ± 4.9
Bottom
0.5 ± 0.1
0.9 ± 0.3
1.4 ± 0.5
Characteristics of Grain Size of the Fayalite (O) Phase
Length of Fayalite (O) Grains, µm
240 ± 218
366 ± 293
401 ± 355
Max. Grain Size
1428
1800
1438
Min. Grain Size
40
59
57
Aspect Ratio
3
7
3
Measurements were conducted using PixAra software (own, in-house), based on measurements of min. 100 grains.
For the slag with the lowest Fe/SiO2 ratio (S1.5) flower-like or spherical SiO2 inclusions were observed (Figure 5), though they were not observed by XRD [Figures 4(c) through 4(e)] likely due to its content below detection limit. This results from the excess (15 wt pct) of SiO2 in S1.5 slag starting composition. For the highest Fe/SiO2 ratio slag (S2.3), Fe3O4 occurred in slag volume also confirmed by XRD [Figure 4(b)] and Mössbauer spectroscopy [Figures 9(a) through 9(c)] resulting from excess iron in this slag. So, presence of Fe3O4 in S1.5 slag may indicate that it is the decomposition product of secondary fayalite OD.
The Fe/SiO2 ratio in slag significantly influenced the morphology of slag phases with significantly augmented columnar crystals of fayalite (O) for ratio 2.0. The statistics on fayalite (O) grain sizes are attached in Table VII. The slag S2.0 was made up of fayalite grains (O) with an average size of 366 µm, which was between sizes of 240 µm (S1.5) and 401 µm (S2.3), but had the largest maximum grains of 1800 µm and the highest aspect ratio (length to width) of 7. The best developed grains of fayalite in S2.0 slag result from Fe/Si ratio closest to stoichiometric fayalite, Fe2SiO4.
This observation has implications for the design of protective high-temperature resistant freeze linings on the hot face of refractory materials, or directly on externally cooled steel walls of vessels, such as those for Cu metallurgy reported by Fallah et al.[54] and Chen et al..[55] Interestingly, the morphological distribution of phases from bottom-to-top in the studied simple composition FeOx-SiO2 slags is analogous to solidified slag (freeze lining) based on significantly different system Al2O3-CaO-FeOx-MgO-SiO2-ZnO[56] and similar to six different lead slags,[57] with amorphous matrix containing small precipitates from cooled metal side, via zone with equiaxial crystals, columnar olivine long crystals, and ending at partially glassy layer. This pattern confirms repeatable microstructure controlled by thermal gradient of solidified slags, with faster cooling when amorphous and less developed crystals occur.
Based on the obtained results, it could be expected that slags with higher Fe/SiO2 ratio will produce thicker magnetite, Fe3O4, layer at the hot face of refractory in contact with air, like those in copper metallurgy. This high-temperature magnetite (Tm = 1597 °C[58]) layer can protect refractory against further penetration of aggressive Si-rich liquid copper slag but, on the other hand, it deteriorates the refining function of slag. Overall, formation of Fe3O4 on refractory surface may have few implications to real refractory work: (1) increased slag liquidus temperature that causes a problem with slag melting requiring higher heat energy as is observed for excessive magnetite formation during work,[36,59] (2) increase of slag ‘apparent’ viscosity generating tapping difficulties and entrapment of metal in slag (viscosity of melt slag is proportional to volume fraction of solid particles[60])[11,36]; (3) the probability of forming thicker protective coating at a slag-refractory interface, similarly to[61]; (4) accretion build up on tuyeres. For the sake of slag fluidity supporting Cu refining, magnetite content shall be less than 17 pct, but in practice it is up to 25 pct.[36]
Based on the obtained SEM-BSE results it could be summarized that, the Fe/SiO2 ratio in slag ~2.0 will produce best developed fayalite crystals, which are expected to have good stability without silica and magnetite within its volume. Such a system could serve as stable freeze-lining (solidified slag) directly on the cooled reactor wall, or on the refractory surface, protecting it against penetration of aggressive slag elements toward refractory. Whereas slag with Fe/SiO2 ~1.5 and above ~2.3 will produce free silica and free magnetite in slag volume, respectively, which would diminish integrity of the heterogenous freeze lining, or cause easier penetration of silica to refractory. Also, Fe/SiO2 ~2.3 in slag could excessively increase magnetite layer thickness, as 11.7 µm-thick magnetite layer on top of examined slag was almost 5 times thicker than for Fe/SiO2 of 2.0, though freeze-lining requires a minimum of a few millimeters’ thickness.[62] On the other hand, Si-rich slag will produce a negligible protective layer. In any case, such lining shall well attach to spinel-containing refractory compositions, like Mg2TiO4,[29] (Mg,Zn)[Al,Fe]2O4,[61] or MgO-(Mg,Zn)[Al,Fe]2O4,[63] which can be further studied by, e.g., air or water cooled finger test.[64,65] Presence of other oxides typical for converting of copper matte, like PbO, CuOx, CaO, MgO, Al2O3, in fayalite slag analogous to studied in this work, was tested in our previous works[29,30] and showed tendency to formation of Fe-rich spinel layer at interfaces when subjected to contact with refractory spinels (MgCr2O4, MgAl2O4, ZnAl2O4, Mg2TiO4) and oxides (MgO, Al2O3). What is clearly seen when comparing the current work (slag freezing on steel) with slag freezing on refractory substrate after corrosion,[29,30] is that the substrate type (metal or ceramics) completely shifts the phase equilibrium, from fayalite to <magnetite+glass>, respectively.

Iron State Characterization by Mössbauer Spectroscopy

Figures 8 and 9 present the results of 57Fe Mössbauer spectroscopy (MS) for α-Fe2O3 raw chemical and molten fayalite slags, respectively. The corresponding hyperfine parameters including isomer shift (IS), quadrupole splitting (QS) and magnetic hyperfine field (B), derived from decomposed spectra are listed in Table VIII. Mössbauer spectroscopy is a useful technique to examine Fe-containing materials, such as copper slags, in which Fe is typically the second most dominant element.[10] Mössbauer spectra provide information on the oxidation state and coordination environment (octahedral, tetrahedral) of iron indicated by specific values of isomer (or chemical) shift (IS). These shifts follow a characteristic order: IS (Fe3+Td) < IS (Fe3+Oh) < IS (Fe2+Td) < IS (Fe2+Oh).[66]
Fig. 8
Room temperature 57Fe Mössbauer spectrum (scatter plot) of hematite (α-Fe2O3) used for the preparation of fayalite slags, fitted to the model consisting of two sextets (olive and red). The hyperfine parameters of each component are given in Table VIII
Full size image
Fig. 9
Room temperature 57Fe Mössbauer spectra (scatter plot) of synthetic fayalite slags (a) S1.5, (b) S2.0 and (c) S2.3. The spectra were fitted to the models of two doublets (pink and green) and two sextets (turquoise and blue). The values of hyperfine parameters are given in Table VIII
Full size image
Table VIII
Hyperfine Parameters of Mössbauer Spectra of Pristine Fe2O3 Chemical and Synthetic Fayalite Slags with Different Fe/SiO2 Ratios
Slag
Model
Color
IS
QS
B
Γ
A
Fe Valence and Site
Phase
α-Fe2O3
sextet S1
olive
0.37
− 0.20
51.09
0.26
98
Fe3+ (oct)
hematite
sextet S2
red
0.38
0.76
0.53
2
Fe3+ (oct)
impurity phase
S1.5
doublet D1
pink
1.16
2.82
0.28
93
Fe2+ (oct-M1)
fayalite
doublet D2
green
1.3
1.8
0.9
4
Fe2+ (oct-M2)
sextet S1
blue
0.28
− 0.03
48.49
0.29
1
Fe3+ (tet)
magnetite
sextet S2
turquise
0.65
0.0
44.9
0.8
2
Fe2.5+ (oct)
S2.0
doublet D1
pink
1.16
2.82
0.29
75
Fe2+ (oct-M1)
fayalite
doublet D2
green
1.3
1.5
1.0
6
Fe2+ (oct-M2)
sextet S1
blue
0.28
-0.01
48.69
0.29
6
Fe3+ (tet)
magnetite
sextet S2
turquise
0.65
0.0
45.40
0.7
13
Fe2.5+ (oct)
S2.3
doublet D1
pink
1.16
2.82
0.29
73
Fe2+ (oct-M1)
fayalite
doublet D2
green
1.3
1.4
1.0
5
Fe2+ (oct-M2)
sextet S1
blue
0.28
− 0.03
48.47
0.29
6
Fe3+ (tet)
magnetite
sextet S2
turquise
0.65
0.0
45.1
0.8
16
Fe2.5+ (oct)
Iron valency, site in oxygen polyhedron and relative proportions (areapct) are obtained by fitting of models to experimental Mössbauer spectra at room temperature. IS is isomer shift (mm/s) relative to α-Fe, QS is quadrupole splitting (mm/s), and B is hyperfine magnetic field (Tesla), Γ is spectral linewidth (mm/s), A is a relative area of the respective spectral component corresponding (with some approximation) to the relative contribution of Fe atoms into respective iron phase. Errors are of the order of unity for the last digit shown
Fe2+/Fe3+ in slags: 32.3 (S1.5), 4.3 (S2.0), 3.5 (S2.3)
The experimental hyperfine spectra of α-Fe2O3 chemical which was used for the preparation of fayalite slags, and the spectra of slags were fitted using a conventional refinement routine with a Lorentzian line shape.
The MS spectrum of α-Fe2O3 (Figure 8) was resolved into two sextets: a dominant component (S1) at IS of 0.37 mm/s and a minor component (S2) at 0.38 mm/s. Both subspectra correspond to Fe3+ in octahedral sites. The dominant subspectrum (S1) represented 98 pct of the total area and exhibited a strong hyperfine magnetic field (B = 51.09 Tesla) typical of ferric ions (Fe3+) in the octahedral sites (Oh) of hematite.[66] The minor component (S2) accounting for 2 pct of the total area, was a red sextet characteristic of paramagnetic ferric ions in a highly distorted phase, with a high QS of 0.76 mm/s. The latter component likely results from impurities in the raw material of hematite which had a purity of 97.2 pct Fe2O3.
As shown in Figure 9, the experimental hyperfine spectra of all the slags were decomposed into two quadrupole doublets and two sextets. The isomer shift (IS) of the doublets, at 1.16 and 1.3 mm/s (for all slags), clearly indicates Fe2+ in octahedral positions with two different symmetries. Based on the results of Mössbauer spectroscopy (MS) and the SEM/EDS analysis, two possible scenarios for Fe2+ occupation arise. The first scenario assumes that Fe2+ occupies two different octahedral sites, M1 and M2, within the same fayalite phase. The M1 site, which is more disordered (D1), is characterized by a quadrupole splitting (QS) of 2.82 mm/s, while M2, with higher symmetry (D2), has a QS of 1.4–1.8 mm/s. The higher intensity of D1 (pink) indicates a larger presence of M1 site component in all slags, compared to D2 (green).
Nikolov et al.[67] studying copper slags with Fe2O3 content of 58.4 wt pct and SiO2 of 29.3 wt pct observed two quadrupole doublets with IS values of 1.14 and 1.17 mm/s and QS values of 2.68 and 2.88 mm/s, which they ascribed to Fe2+ in two different octahedral sites (M1 and M2) in fayalite. They also detected additional doublet (IS 1.24 mm/s) related to Fe2+ in glassy phase, which was not observed in any of the slags studied in this work due to a lack of fluxing elements compared to their study.[67] Further MS studies at 64 K[68] confirmed the presence of two paramagnetic doublets at IS values of 1.23 and 1.30 mm/s, attributed to Fe2+ in two distinct octahedral sites with different electrical field gradients around the Fe nucleus. Variations in IS values may stem from differences in slag cooling rates.
The alternative explanation for the Fe occupation involves the higher spectral line width (Γ) observed for D2, which ranged from 0.9 to 1.0 mm/s, compared to D1 with a significantly narrower line width of 0.28–0.29 mm/s. This suggests that D1 and D2 could originate from Fe2+ in octahedral sites of different fayalite phases. SEM/EDS analysis revealed two types of fayalites, one with Fe/Si ratio of 1.6–1.9 and the other with a ratio of 1.2–1.4. The narrower line (Γ) of D1 could therefore be attributed to fayalite with a more stoichiometric composition (O), while D2 with a broader linewidth likely originates from Fe-poor defected fayalite (OD). Based on the literature and the results obtained in this study, the first scenario—where doublets arise from Fe2+ in the M1 and M2 sites of the same fayalite phase—is more plausible. The doublets in fayalite should be assigned to Fe2+ in the M1 and M2 sites, with the latter occupying a larger volume of octahedra[69] due to the significantly higher Γ.
The presence of sextets in all samples indicates that a magnetically ordered phase exists in produced slags. The experimental sextet was resolved into two subspectra with isomer shifts of 0.28 and 0.65 mm/s, attributed to Fe3+ and Fe2.5+ in tetrahedral (Td) and octahedral (Oh) sites, respectively, of magnetite structure.[70] Magnetite is inverse spinel[48] having Fe2+ (Oh) and Fe3+ (Td, Oh) ions. Assignment of the S1 to partial oxidation state (Fe2.5+) ion is due to very fast electron hopping between ferrous (Fe2+) and ferric (Fe3+) ions in octahedral sites of magnetite, which is faster than the sampling time in Mössbauer effect measurement of 10−8 s.[71,72] The S2 subspectrum, with an IS of 0.28 mm/s, corresponds to Fe3+ in the tetrahedral site (Td) of magnetite. The higher hyperfine magnetic field (48.5 Tesla) associated with the Fe3+ in Td sites (S2) supports its identification as Fe3+, while the lower magnetic hyperfine field (45 Tesla) of the Fe2.5+ in Oh sites (S1) indicate a mixed valence state. The increasing contribution of magnetite in the composition of produced slags, S1.5 (3 pct), S2.0 (18 pct) and S2.3 (22 pct), is mainly due to higher Fe/SiO2 ratios in them (Table II) but it is also impacted by increased pO2 during cooling the slag in air.
The total contribution of Fe2+ to fayalite in this work was 97 pct in slag S1.5, decreasing to 81 pct in S2.0, and 78 pct in S2.3, respectively, with rest to 100 pct corresponding to magnetite. This is accompanied by a decreasing Fe2+/Fe3+ ratio in slags of higher iron content, being 32.3 (for S1.5), 4.3 (S2.0), 3.5 (S2.3). This results from iron content and creating redox conditions for iron oxides, which were different during melting (reducing) and subsequent cooling (oxidizing).
First, fayalite \(\left( {Fe_{2}^{2 + } SiO_{4} } \right)\) was possible to be formed out of Fe2O3+SiO2 mixture melted in graphite crucible at 1280 °C in air, due to effective Fe3+ reduction to Fe2+ caused by oxygen activity decrease by C from graphite crucible, as confirmed by about ~50 g crucible mass loss after melting. Considering the mass of oxygen (~4 g) contained in a furnace chamber (volume of 0.015 m3) and the loss of ~50 g of graphite, all available oxygen was consumed. Thus, the resulting high CO/CO2 ratio during heating reduced the oxygen partial pressure creating conditions for iron redox reaction. This enabled the reduction of ferric (Fe3+) to ferrous Fe2+) ions mainly by CO, with a likely contribution from direct reduction by solid carbon.
Then, during cooling of slags (from 1280 °C to 25 °C) after pouring them onto the steel plate, oxygen activity increased, which affected the slag by destabilizing the primary fayalite phase \(({Fe}_{2}^{2+}Si{O}_{4})\) as evidenced by the appearance of adjacent OD phase (Figures 5, 6, 7), finally forming Fe3O4 and SiO2 in slag volume (Figure 5, right). The impact of increased pO2 is also thicker Fe3O4 layer on top surface of slags compared to its bottom side (Table VII), with the former being in a direct contact with air. The phase distribution showing magnetite as the only form of iron oxide in all slags (XRD, SEM-EDS, Mössbauer spectroscopy) indicated that the oxygen partial pressure during slag melting was in approximate range from 10−8 to 10−2 atm, according to stability diagram shown by Zhang et al.[11]
The presence of magnetite in slag S2.3 is mainly due to an excess iron in the starting chemical composition (Table I), next to the primary Fe2SiO4 phase. In contrast, the presence of low amounts of magnetite in S1.5 and S2.0 slags, and a corresponding content in slag S2.3, is expected to be the effect of the increased oxygen activity during cooling that destabilized the primary fayalite (O) phase.
In terms of practical aspects, the maximum Fe3O4 content in the synthetic fayalite slags produced in this work of 16 pct for Fe-richest slag (Fe/SiO2 = 2.3) is still lower than the recommended maximum content of magnetite in industrial copper slags of 17 pct. This limit is important for maintaining good slag fluidity and, thus, enhancing Cu refining properties, though in practice Fe3O4 contents up to 25 pct are met.[4]

X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy

Fe L and Si K edge X-ray absorption spectra (XAS) for pristine oxide raw materials (α-Fe2O3, amorphous SiO2) and synthetic fayalite slags are shown in Figure 10. The energies of spectral features are attached in Table IX (Fe) and Table X (Si).
Fig. 10
XAS spectra for pristine oxides (α-Fe2O3, SiO2) and fayalite slags with different Fe/SiO2 ratios S1.5, S2.0 and S2.3, (a) Fe L2,3 edges, (b) Si K edge
Full size image
Table IX
Features of XAS Spectra for Fe L2,3 Edges in Pristine Fe2O3 Chemical and Synthetic Fayalite Slags (Refer to Fig. 10(a))
Sample
Feature, eV
Intensity ratio
a
B
C
d
E
F
C/B
E/F
αFe2O3 Chempur
708.5
710.0
721.6
723.2
1.87
0.94
S1.5
706.3
708.4
710.0
719.8
721.6
723.6
1.06
1.08
S2.0
706.3
708.4
710.0
719.8
721.6
723.6
1.04
1.06
S2.3
706.3
708.4
710.0
719.8
721.6
723.6
1.03
1.05
Table X
Features of XAS Spectra for Si K Edge in Pristine SiO2 Chemical and Synthetic Fayalite Slags (Refer to Fig. 10(b))
Sample
Feature, eV
A
b
c
SiO2 POCH (Amorphous)
1850.6
S1.5
1850.4
S2.0
1850.2
1857.0
1867.0
S2.3
1850.2
1857.0
1867.0
The L-edge spectra derive from spin-orbit interaction between 2p core holes with 3d final states. This interaction causes the peak to split into two distinct peaks, L3 and L2. These peaks correspond to the transition of core electrons from Fe (2p) level to the unoccupied 3d orbital.[73]
Both the Fe L3 and L2 edges were split into two subpeaks (L3: B, C and L2: E, F). These subpeaks derive from the crystal field splitting of d bands with oxygen bonding, indicating different positions or oxidation states of Fe within the slag phases.
The XAS spectrum of hematite [Figure 10(a)] clearly shows the doublet for L3 edge, with subpeaks at B (708.5 eV) and C (710 eV), and for L2 edge at E (721.6) and F (723.2 eV). The shape of these subpeaks is like previously published XAS spectra for hematite.[74] According to Shen et al.[75] the doublets in both L3 and L2 regions confirm the presence of Fe3+ in hematite. In the hematite structure, Fe3+ is in distorted octahedral sites surrounded by oxygen anions.[76] The presence of only Fe3+ in hematite was also evidenced by Mössbauer spectroscopy (Figure 8, Table VIII).
For the fayalite slags [Figure 10(a)] the XAS spectra combine the contributions from all Fe atoms in the structure, originating from both occupational sites (M1 and M2). Interestingly, XAS spectra of fayalite slags are similar to hematite, but with additional pre-peaks (a and d) and different subpeaks intensity ratios. Notably, C/B peak ratio is higher for hematite (1.87) and approaches 1.0 for all slags. Also, E/F peak ratio is below 1 for α-Fe2O3 and above 1 for all slags, with lower values for the increased Fe/SiO2 ratio in slag.
The positions of characteristic features in the XAS spectra (Table IX, indicated as: a, B, C, d, E, F) are very consistent, with only marginal shifts observed between α-Fe2O3 and slags for the B (Δ = 0.1 eV) and F peaks (Δ = 0.4 eV). No significant shifts in peak positions were observed among the fayalite slags.
Mössbauer spectroscopy, which is a high-resolution method sensitive to iron oxidation state and coordination, indicated that most Fe in slags (97 pct in S1.5, 81 pct in S2.0, 78 pct in S2.3; Table VIII) is Fe2+ occupying M1 (more distorted) and M2 (less distorted) octahedrons, with a minor contribution from octahedral Fe2.5+ and tetrahedral Fe3+ in magnetite. So, it can be deduced that B peak (708.4 eV) and C peak (710 eV) at XAS spectra represent the imposition of Fe2+ at equivalent M1 and M2 sites, with B primarily deriving from M2 octahedron. This is supported by the observation of a split in Fe K edge into two subpeaks for synthetic Fe2SiO4 (dry ice quenched) as shown by Wu et al.[77] where the peak intensity ratio changed when XAS spectra were measured at 900 °C.
Si K edge spectra for SiO2 and fayalite slags [Figure 10(b)] show a dominant A peak and minor b and c features. Position of K edge single peak is at 1850.6 eV for SiO2 pristine sample, and it leftward shifts slightly to 1850.4 eV (S1.5) and 1850.2 eV (S2.0 and S2.3), as attached in Table X. The analogous single peak for Si K edge of fayalite at 1846.6 eV was observed by Li et al.[78] The difference in peak positions may derive from differences in cooling rates between slag samples, which significantly affects the structural atomic order. Although the pristine SiO2 used for slag preparation was amorphous (as confirmed by XRD), the molten slags were crystalline.
The peak shift in energy scale is the indicator of reduced degree of polymerization of SiO44− clusters in slag.[78] This was proved by the systematic leftward shift in Si K edge peak energy of minerals with different Qn (Q is tetrahedron, n is number of neighboring tetrahedrons linked by bridging oxygen atoms, n = 0 ÷ 4[35]), such as shift from Q0 (forsterite), Q2 (enstatite) to Q3 (talc) at 1845.5, 1846.5 to 1846.9 eV, respectively.[78] Fe2+ ions in copper slag are known to break Si4+–OD bonds, generating more nonbridging oxygen anions and leading to depolymerization of the slag (reducing Qx).[11,35] This results in a drop of slag viscosity, which can even be 5 times lower compared to slags with FeO/SiO2 ratios of 1.5 and 2.5 at 1000 °C, as shown in Figure 11 (simulated using FactSage, Viscosity module[42]). Thus, XAS spectra in this work provide evidence of a reduced polymerization rate of copper slag with higher Fe/SiO2 ratios.
Fig. 11
Calculated viscosity changes in fayalite slags with different weight FeO/SiO2 ratios up to 1400 °C by FactSage, demonstrating a rapid drop in viscosity with higher iron content, (1400 °C is typical maximum temperature of copper converting and refining[1])
Full size image

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy and Raman Spectroscopy

Figure 12 presents FTIR spectra of pristine SiO2 and α-Fe2O3 used for the preparation of synthetic slags, while Figure 13 shows spectra of molten fayalite slags.
Fig. 12
FTIR curves of pristine SiO2 (amorphous) and α-Fe2O3 chemicals used for the preparation of fayalite slags
Full size image
Fig. 13
FTIR curves of synthetic fayalite slags of different Fe/SiO2 ratios, ν1ν4 indicates internal molecular vibrations in SiO4 tetrahedrons of fayalite phase
Full size image
SiO2 (amorphous by XRD) contains characteristic broadened bands corresponding to Si-O-Si vibrations at 1214 cm−1 (symmetric stretching), 1093 cm−1 (asymmetric stretching), 820 cm−1 (symmetric stretching) and 463 cm−1 (bending), which agree well with bands reported by Tran et al.[79] for amorphous SiO2. Ocana et al.[80] observed similar bands in amorphous silica at 1225, 1075, 800, 450 cm−1, and comparable values were obtained in.[79] It shall be noticed that the size, shape and aggregation of SiO2 amorphous particles can affect the infrared spectra of silica,[80] which may be responsible for variation of the results.
α-Fe2O3 spectrum reveals intensive absorption band at 542 and 473 cm−1, both containing the shoulder. Although these bands are broader than those observed in natural hematite (517 and 438 cm−1, RUFF no. R050300[81]) they align with the characteristic absorption peaks of hematite. The shape of hematite particles influences the FTIR spectrum: sharp bands (567 and 483 cm−1) were observed for single-crystalline 1 µm size pseudocubic particles of α-Fe2O3, while much broader with additional shoulders were observed for ellipsoidal α-Fe2O3 with a length of 2.1 µm and an aspect ratio of 2.5.[82] Moreover, the bands at FTIR spectra of α-Fe2O3 shown to broaden with increasing aspect ratio (length to width) of the hematite particles.[82] The grain size of the hematite used in this work was 7.3 µm (d50) with a bimodal particle size distribution, which explains the character of the obtained spectrum.
Before FTIR and Raman spectra analysis of fayalite slags, it is important to understand the crystal structure and coordination of atoms in fayalite (Fe2SiO4). Olivine-structure fayalite contains isolated [SiO4] tetrahedra linked by [FeO6] octahedra. Structure is represented by each oxygen in octahedron bonded to a tetrahedrally coordinated silicon, forming edge-sharing [FeO6] chains parallel to the c-direction which are cross-linked to similar chains of [SiO4] tetrahedra. Due to this order, some [FeO6] octahedra are distorted, with smaller (M1) and larger (M2) volumes. Fe-O bond lengths are 2.158 and 2.178 Å for M1 and M2, respectively.[69]
FTIR spectra of synthetic fayalite slags (Figure 13) are very similar to each other, with characteristic intense absorption bands in ranges 827–962 and 476–563 cm−1, characteristic for Si-O vibrations in SiO4 units of fayalite. The peaks at 947–874 and 825–827 cm−1 are due to asymmetric (ν3) and symmetric (ν1) stretching of Si-O bonds in SiO4 of Fe2SiO4 (SEM, phase O),[11,25] respectively.
The well-resolved absorption band at 561–563 cm−1 corresponds to asymmetric bending vibrations (σ) in SiO4 groups of Fe2SiO4 similarly to shown in,[11,25] and it overlaps with band from stretching vibrations of Fe-O bonds in Fe3O4, which was observed in slags S2.0, S2.3 by XRD and Mössbauer spectroscopy. The band at 507–476 cm−1 is due to asymmetric bending (ν4) of Si-O in fayalite phase.
Broad band at 1113–1120 cm−1 is indicative of Si-O-Si vibrations in the amorphous silicate phase,[67] which is most likely glassy-like fayalite (OD) with Fe/Si ratio of 1.2–1.4, as seen in SEM images for all three slags (Figures 5, 6, 7). Alternatively, it can be attributed to SiO2 remnants, which was especially visible at SEM images of the highest silica content slag S1.5 (Figure 5).
Summarizing, most absorption bands come from internal Si-O vibrations in isolated SiO4 units of Fe2SiO4, and peak at 561–563 cm−1 may indicate the presence of Fe-O vibrations in Fe3O4, although it overlaps with bending in SiO4 groups of fayalite. FTIR spectra obtained in this work are most similar to those obtained for industrial copper slags from flash-smelting and converting processes,[23] confirming the representativeness of synthetic slags produced in this work.
Raman spectroscopy is a complementary technique to FTIR spectroscopy as it is more sensitive to symmetric molecular vibrations due to polarization changes during vibrations, while FTIR is sensitive to antisymmetric vibrations resulting from changes in the dipole moment.[83] Raman spectra, measured in microareas observed under an optical microscope (at 100× magnification) of slag S2.3, previously identified by SEM as fayalite O, fayalite OD and magnetite F, are shown in Figure 14. This figure also compares the spectra with the reference spectrum of fayalite (X050077) and magnetite (R060191) from the RUFF database.[84]
Fig. 14
Raman spectra of S2.3 fayalite slag measured from areas of fayalite O (Fe/SiO2 = 1.9), fayalite OD (Fe/SiO2 = 1.2) and magnetite. Reference spectra are from RUFF database (magnetite-R060191; fayalite-X050077),[84] the bands ν14 correspond to internal molecular vibrations in SiO4 tetrahedra of fayalite
Full size image
Low-frequency Raman modes at 238–240 cm−1 in fayalite are most likely due to SiO4 translations.[69] All bands between 600 and 1000 cm−1 represent internal stretching vibrations in SiO4 (symmetric ν1, and asymmetric ν3) for both IR and FTIR spectra.[85]
Raman spectra of both crystalline (O) and defected (OD) fayalite phases show similar features, with two comparable high-energy Raman modes at 816 cm−1 (O, OD) and 839 cm−1 for O, and 843 cm−1 for OD. The corresponding bands in reference to the Fe2SiO4 spectrum (RUFF, X050077) are broad with distinguishable bands at 820 and 843 cm−1. These bands correspond to symmetric vibrations ν1 in SiO4 tetrahedra, which were previously observed in FTIR spectra as a small band at 825–827 cm−1 (Figure 13). Neighboring, low-intensity Raman band at 901–903 cm−1 in fayalite most likely corresponds to asymmetric stretching vibrations (ν3) in SiO4 of fayalite, which was observed as the strong band in FTIR spectrum (Figure 13, 914 cm−1).[69] This confirms the complementarity of both experimental methods, with higher intensity bands from symmetric vibrations in Raman, and asymmetric vibrations in FTIR spectroscopy. Interestingly, this last band was not reported for reference fayalite. A small band at 505-503 cm-1 is due to asymmetric bending vibrations (ν4) in SiO4.[67]
Overall, the bands for both fayalites’ phases are very similar to each other, although those in fayalite O (Fe/SiO2 = 1.9) are less sharp compared to defected fayalite OD (Fe/SiO2 = 1.2). This can be explained by defected nature of the latter one as seen in SEM images, and its nonstoichiometry (low Fe/SiO2 ratio).
In slag 2.3, magnetite was confirmed by both XRD, MS as well as SEM/EDS analysis through observation of bright, dendritically grown crystals with an approximate size of 10 µm. Raman spectrum [yellow, Figure 14(a)] measured at the brightest area observed under an optical microscope showed a very strong, broadened band characteristic for Fe-O symmetric vibrations at 662 cm−1 (A1g, stretching of oxygen atoms along Fe-O) and a weaker band at 533 cm−1 (T2g, asymmetric bending Fe-O) for magnetite. The analogue bands in the reference magnetite red spectrum occur at 672 and 556 cm−1 (R060191), which also agree well with the values of 662 and 530 cm−1 reported by Qu et al.[86] A small band at 294 cm−1 represents the symmetric bending (Eg) of Fe-O in magnetite.[87]
The use of Raman spectroscopy confirmed the presence of magnetite and fayalite phases in molten slags, although negligible differentiation was observed between crystalline and defected fayalites. Despite this, a combination of microscopic and structural methods is valuable and useful for precise slag characterization.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Synthetic fayalite slags with Fe/SiO2 weight ratios of 1.5, 2.0 and 2.3 were obtained by melting the oxide mixture (Fe2O3+SiO2) in a graphite crucible at 1280 °C followed by an air-quenching like dumped industrial slags.
  • SEM/EDS analyses showed that slag S1.5 consist of Fe2SiO4 with some residual SiO2 and Fe3O4, while S2.0 and S2.3 contained only Fe2SiO4 and Fe3O4 (13.9 and 17.6 pct, respectively). XRD coverified Fe2SiO4 and Fe3O4 in all the slags but did not detect any SiO2 polymorph.
  • Panoramic SEM image combined with multipoint EDS analysis revealed the formation of two types of fayalites: crystalline (large columnar grains) and defected. Defected fayalite was formed because of increased oxygen activity during slag cooling, as confirmed by the formation of a magnetite layer with its thickness larger on top surface of slag. Defected fayalite was difficult to identify by other used methods.
  • Mössbauer spectroscopy confirmed Fe2+ in octahedral sites of M1 (majority) and M2 (minority) of Fe2SiO4, and the presence of 3, 19 and 22 pct Fe3O4 in S1.5, S2.0 and S2.3 slags, respectively. Fe2+/Fe3+ ratio gradually decreased with increasing Fe/SiO2 ratio in slag, from 32.3 (S1.5), 4.2 (S2.0) to 3.5 (S2.3).
  • XAS spectra were revealed for the first time for FeOx-SiO2 molten slags, clearly indicating that an increase in Fe/SiO2 ratio is associated with a leftward shift of the Si K-edge. This shift could be indicative of reduced polymerization of SiO44- clusters in slag.
  • FTIR combined with Raman spectroscopy provided complementary information on asymmetric and symmetric molecular vibrations in copper slags, confirming the presence of both phase components in synthetic fayalite slags.
  • Slag with Fe/SiO2 ~2.0 could serve as a stable freeze-lining due to homogeneity of the phase composition even after air cooling with the longest fayalite grains (1800 µm). Slag with Fe/SiO2 ~2.3 could excessively increment magnetite layer thickness as 11.7 µm-thick layer was observed on top of examined slag being almost 5- and 24-times thicker than for slags with Fe/SiO2 of 2.0 and 1.5, respectively. Slag with Fe/SiO2 ~1.5 contains free silica that can destructively impact the basic refractory when the freeze-lining is applied on it. All the slags will form defected (oxidized) fayalite during cooling in air which may diminish the protective lining integrity if such a lining is in a prolonged contact with air.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by The National Centre for Research and Development, Grant no. LIDER/14/0086/L-12/20/NCBR/2021, 2022-2026 (Principal Investigator: I. Jastrzębska), and partly from the program “Excellence Initiative – Research University” for the AGH University of Kraków (IDUB AGH, grant ID 9053, and 1449). MSc. A. Kalęba is highly appreciated for participating in slag preparation. Author expresses gratitude for the support provided by Dr. A. Wojteczko and Prof. M. Ziąbka in conducting SEM measurements. Prof. P. Stoch is acknowledged for his valuable discussion of structural methods. Prof. A. Błachowski is thanked for conducting the Mössbauer measurements. Dr Sz. Wójcik is acknowledged for collecting Raman spectra. MSc. P. Szymczak is acknowledged for conducting XRD measurements. This publication was partially developed under the provision of the Polish Ministry of Education and Science project: “Support for research and development with the use of research infrastructure of the National Synchrotron Radiation Centre SOLARIS” under contract nr 1/SOL/2021/2. SOLARIS Centre is acknowledged for access to the XAS PIRX beamline, where the measurements were performed. Special thanks to Dr E. Partyka-Jankowska and Dr M. Zając for providing technical support during XAS measurements.

Conflict of interests

The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Download
Title
Preparation and Properties of Fayalite (Fe2SiO4) Synthetic Copper Slags with Fe/SiO2 Ratios from 1.5 to 2.3
Author
Ilona Jastrzębska
Publication date
24-10-2025
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B / Issue 6/2025
Print ISSN: 1073-5615
Electronic ISSN: 1543-1916
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-025-03828-w
1.
2.
go back to reference Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny – Państwowy Instytut Badawczy, Bilans zasobów złóż kopalin w Polsce według stanu na 31 grudnia 2023 r (2024), (Mineral Resources Deposits in Poland 2023). Warszawa, PIG-PIB, https://surowce.pgi.gov.pl/
3.
go back to reference T.C. Phiri, P. Singh, and A.N. Nikoloski: Metals, 2024, vol. 14(10), p. 1119. https://doi.org/10.3390/met14101119.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference G.A. Flores, C. Risopatron, and J. Pease: J. Miner. Metals Mater. Soc., 2020, vol. 72(10), pp. 3447–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-020-04255-9.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference M. Radetzki: Resour. Policy, 2009, vol. 34(4), pp. 176–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2009.03.003.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference T.C. Phiri, P. Singh, and A.N. Nikoloski: Miner. Eng., 2022, vol. 180, 107474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2022.107474.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference P. Madej and M. Kucharski: Arch. Metall. Mater., 2015, vol. 60(3), pp. 1663–71. https://doi.org/10.1515/amm-2015-0289.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference R.K. Dhir, J. de Brito, R. Mangabhai, and C.Q. Lye: Production and Properties of Copper Slag, in Sustainable Construction Materials: Copper Slag. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2017, pp. 27–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-100986-4.00003-1.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference I. Jastrzębska, A. Piwowarczyk, A. Błachowski, and S. Mandal: Ceram. Int., 2024, vol. 50(13), pp. 23315–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2024.04.055.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference M.E. Schlesinger, M.J. King, K.C. Sole, and W.G. Davenport: Extractive Metallurgy of Copper, 5th ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-64841-3.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference B. Zhang, W. Xiao, Y. Yang, S. Zhou, Y. Wei, B. Li, and H. Wang: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2024, vol. 55, pp. 495–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-023-02972-5.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference N.N. Viswanathan, F.-Z. Ji, D. Sichen, and S. Seetharaman: ISIJ Int., 2001, vol. 41(7), pp. 722–27. https://doi.org/10.2355/isijinternational.41.722.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Y. Shiraishi, K. Ikeda, A. Tamura, and T. Saitô: Trans. Jpn. Inst. Metals, 1978, vol. 19(5), pp. 264–74. https://doi.org/10.2320/matertrans1960.19.264.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference P. Vadasz and K. Tomasek: J. Chem. Eng. Data, 2008, vol. 54(2), pp. 327–32. https://doi.org/10.1021/je800350j.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference H. Zhang, B. Li, Y. Wei, H. Wang, and Y. Yang: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2022, vol. 53, pp. 1538–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-022-02464-y.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference M. Chen, S. Raghunath, and B. Zhao: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2014, vol. 45, pp. 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-013-9917-6.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference B. Wang, H. Yang, Z. Jin, Z. Liu, and M. Zou: Metals, 2022, vol. 12, p. 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/met12010024.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference H. Shi, L. Chen, A. Malfliet, P.T. Jones, B. Blanpain, and M. Guo: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2016, vol. 47(5), pp. 2820–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-016-0717-7.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference H.S. Park, S.S. Park, and I. Sohn: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2011, vol. 42(4), pp. 692–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-011-9512-7.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference X. Hou, G. Xiao, D. Ding, N. Zhang, and Y. Gao: J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 2021, vol. 574, 121147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2021.121147.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference X. Meng, Y. Li, H. Wang, Y. Yang, and A. Mclean: J. Hazard. Mater., 2020, vol. 399, 122845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122845.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference M. Chen, S. Raghunath, and B. Zhao: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2013, vol. 44, pp. 506–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-013-9810-3.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference I. Michailova and D. Mehandjiev: J. Univ. Chem. Technol. Metall., 2010, vol. 45(3), pp. 317–26.
24.
go back to reference Y. Goto, S. Kawanishi, S. Natsui, J.I. Takahashi, and H. Nogami: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2024, vol. 55, pp. 1735–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-024-03063-9.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference I. Mihailova, L. Radev, and D. Mehandjiev: J. Chem. Technol. Metall., 2017, vol. 52(5), pp. 929–39.
26.
go back to reference M. Ludwig, E. Śnieżek, I. Jastrzębska, A. Piwowarczyk, A. Wojteczko, Y. Li, and J. Szczerba: Corros. Sci., 2022, vol. 195, 109949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2021.109949.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference I. Jastrzębska, J. Szczerba, J. Szlęzak, E. Śnieżek, and Z. Pędzich: Mater. Tehnol., 2015, vol. 49, p. 6. https://doi.org/10.17222/mit.2014.186.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Y. Lee and C.L. Nassaralla: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 1997, vol. 28(5), pp. 855–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-997-0013-7.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference I. Jastrzębska, J. Przystaś, O. Pająk, T. Błachuta, P. Drożdż, and S. Mandal: J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., 2025, vol. 46(1), 117728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2025.117728.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference I. Jastrzębska, O. Pająk, J. Przystaś, W. Łukianiuk, P. Drożdż, and S. Mandal: J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., 2025, vol. 2025, 117807.
31.
go back to reference S. Orzechowski, I. Suliga, J. Trąbska, and B. Trybalska: Mater. Archeol., 2016, vol. 41, pp. 19–50.
32.
go back to reference T. Hidayat, D. Shishin, S.A. Decterov, and E. Jak: J. Phase Equilib. Diffus., 2017, vol. 38(4), pp. 477–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11669-017-0535-x.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference F.J.M. Rietmeijer, J.A. Nuth III., and J.M. Karner: Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 1999, vol. 1(7), pp. 1511–16. https://doi.org/10.1039/A900053D.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference J.C. Hostetter and R.B. Sosman: J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1916, vol. 38, p. 6.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference S. Seetharaman: Treatise on Process Metallurgy, 1st ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-66691-0.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference P. Tan: Int. J. Mater. Res., 2007, vol. 98(10), pp. 995–1003. https://doi.org/10.3139/146.101548.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference A. Błachowski, K. Ruebenbauer, J. Zukrowski, and R. Górnicki: Acta Phys. Pol. Ser. A, 2008, vol. 114(6), pp. 1707–13. https://doi.org/10.12693/APhysPolA.114.1707.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference M. Zając, T. Giela, K. Freindl, K. Kollbek, J. Korecki, E. Madej, K. Pitala, A. Kozioł-Rachwał, M. Sikora, N. Spiridis, J. Stępień, A. Szkudlarek, M. Ślęzak, T. Ślęzak, and D. Wilgocka-Ślęzak: Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. B, 2021, vol. 492, pp. 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nimb.2020.12.024.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference J. Szlachetko, J. Szade, E. Beyer, W. Błachucki, P. Ciochon, P. Dumas, K. Freindl, G. Gazdowicz, S. Glatt, K. Guła, J. Hormes, P. Indyka, A. Klonecka, J. Kołodziej, T. Kołodziej, J. Korecki, P. Korecki, F. Kosiorowski, K. Kosowska, G. Kowalski, M. Kozak, P. Kozioł, W. Kwiatek, D. Liberda, H. Lichtenberg, E. Madej, A. Mandziak, A. Marendziak, K. Matlak, A. Maximenko, P. Nita, N. Olszowska, R. Panas, E. Partyka-Jankowska, M. Piszak, A. Prange, M. Rawski, M. Roman, M. Rosmus, M. Sikora, J. Sławek, T. Sobol, K. Sowa, N. Spiridis, J. Stępień, M. Szczepanik, M. Ślęzak, T. Ślęzak, T. Tyliszczak, G. Ważny, J. Wiechecki, D. Wilgocka-Ślęzak, B. Wolanin, P. Wróbel, T. Wróbel, M. Zając, A. Wawrzyniak, and M. Stankiewicz: Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 2023, vol. 138, p. 10. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-022-03592-9.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Center for X-ray Optics and Advanced Light Source, X-Ray Data Booklet, Center for X-ray Optics and Advanced Light Source, 2001, https://xdb.lbl.gov/
41.
go back to reference V.A. Solé, E. Papillon, M. Cotte, P. Walter, and J. Susini: Spectrochim. Acta B, 2007, vol. 62(1), pp. 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sab.2006.12.002.CrossRef
42.
go back to reference C.W. Bale, E. Bélisle, P. Chartrand, S.A. Decterov, G. Eriksson, A.E. Gheribi, K. Hack, I.H. Jung, Y.B. Kang, J. Melançon, J. Sangster, P. Spencer, A.D. Pelton, S. Petersen, C. Robelin, and M.A. Van Ende: Calphad, 2016, vol. 54, pp. 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.calphad.2016.05.002.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference W.Y. Kim, P. Hudon, and I.H. Jung: Calphad, 2021, vol. 72, 102244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.calphad.2020.102244.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference A.N. Grundy, H. Liu, I.H. Jung, S. Decterov, and A.D. Pelton: Int. J. Mater. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.), 2008, vol. 99, pp. 1185–94. https://doi.org/10.3139/146.101752.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference A.N. Grundy, I.H. Jung, S. Decterov, and A.D. Pelton: Int. J. Mater. Res. (formerly Z. Metallkd.), 2008, vol. 99, pp. 1195–1209. https://doi.org/10.3139/146.101753.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference C.G. Dodd and P.H. Ribbe: Phys. Chem. Miner., 1978, vol. 3, pp. 145–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00308118.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference S.S. Hafner, J. Stanek, and M. Stanek: J. Phys. Chem. Solids, 1990, vol. 51(3), pp. 203–08. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3697(90)90048-K.CrossRef
48.
go back to reference I. Jastrzębska, J. Szczerba, A. Błachowski, and P. Stoch: Eur. J. Mineral., 2017, vol. 29(1), pp. 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1127/ejm/2017/0029-2579.CrossRef
49.
go back to reference R.A. Robie, B.S. Hemingway: Thermodynamic properties of minerals and related substances at 298.15 K and 1 bar (105 Pascals) pressures and at higher temperatures, US Geological Survey Bulletin 2131, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1995, https://doi.org/10.3133/b2131
50.
go back to reference J.R. Rumble: CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 100th ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2019.
51.
go back to reference A.M. Martin, K. Righter, L.P. Keller, E. Médard, B. Devouard, Z. Rahman, Fayalite oxidation processes: Experimental evidence for the stability of pure ferric fayalite? 42nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, abstract 2716, The Woodlands, Texas, March 7–11, 2011
52.
go back to reference S.J. Mackwell: Phys. Chem. Miner., 1992, vol. 19, pp. 220–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00202311.CrossRef
53.
go back to reference A.M. Martin, E. Médard, B. Devouard, L.P. Keller, K. Righter, and J.L. Devidal: Am. Mineral., 2015, vol. 100(5–6), pp. 1153–64. https://doi.org/10.2138/am-2015-5042.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference A. Fallah-Mehrjardi, P.C. Hayes, and E. Jak: J. Miner. Metal. Mater. Soc., 2014, vol. 66(9), pp. 1654–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-014-1127-4.CrossRef
55.
go back to reference L. Chen, M. Guo, S. Huang, P. Tom Jones, B. Blanpain, and A. Malfliet: Freeze-Lining Formation from Fayalite-Based Slags, in Advances in Molten Slags, Fluxes, and Salts: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Molten Slags, Fluxes and Salts (MOLTEN16). R.G. Reddy, P. Chaubal, P. Chris Pistorius, and T.M.S. Uday Pal, eds., Springer, Cham, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48769-4.CrossRef
56.
go back to reference M. Campforts, K. Verscheure, E. Boydens, T. Van Rompaey, B. Blanpain, and P. Wollants: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2007, vol. 38(6), pp. 841–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-007-9099-1.CrossRef
57.
go back to reference M. Campforts, B. Blanpain, and P. Wollants: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2009, vol. 40(5), pp. 643–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-009-9258-7.CrossRef
59.
go back to reference I. Pérez, I. Moreno-Ventas, and G. Ríos: Ceram. Int., 2018, vol. 44(15), pp. 18363–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.07.052.CrossRef
60.
go back to reference L. Wu, M. Ek, M. Song, and D. Sichen: Steel Res. Int., 2010, vol. 82(4), pp. 388–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/srin.201000207.CrossRef
61.
go back to reference I. Jastrzębska, J. Przystaś, O. Pająk, M.A. Van Ende, I.H. Jung, and S. Mandal: J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., 2025, vol. 45, p. 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2024.117070.CrossRef
62.
go back to reference I. Bellemans, J. Zietsman, and K. Verbeken: J. Sustain. Metall., 2022, vol. 8, pp. 64–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40831-022-00505-z.CrossRef
63.
go back to reference I. Jastrzębska, J. Przystaś, O. Pająk, A. Wilmański, and S. Mandal: J. Eur. Ceram. Soc., 2025, vol. 45, p. 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2025.117545.CrossRef
64.
go back to reference A. Fallah-Mehrjardi, P.C. Hayes, and E. Jak: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2013, vol. 44(3), pp. 534–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-013-9806-z.CrossRef
65.
go back to reference A. Fallah-Mehrjardi, J. Jansson, P. Taskinen, P.C. Hayes, and E. Jak: Metall. Mater. Trans. B, 2014, vol. 45, pp. 864–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11663-013-9987-5.CrossRef
66.
go back to reference N.N. Greenwood and T.C. Gibb: Mössbauer Spectroscopy, Chapman and Hall Ltd, London, 1971.CrossRef
67.
go back to reference A. Nikolov and A. Karamanov: Materials, 2022, vol. 15, p. 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15072666.CrossRef
68.
go back to reference W. Lottermoser, K. Forcher, G. Amthaucr, and H. Fuess: Phys. Chem. Miner., 1995, vol. 22(4), pp. 259–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00202259.CrossRef
69.
go back to reference A. Chopelas: Am. Miner., 1991, vol. 76(7–8), pp. 1101–09.
70.
go back to reference C.A. Gorski and M.M. Scherer: Am. Mineral., 2010, vol. 95(7), pp. 1017–26. https://doi.org/10.2138/am.2010.3435.CrossRef
71.
go back to reference F.K. Lotgering and A.M. Van Diepen: J. Phys. Chem. Solids, 1997, vol. 38(6), pp. 565–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3697(77)90221-9.CrossRef
72.
go back to reference G.A. Sawatzky, J.M.D. Coey, and A.H. Morrish: J. Appl. Phys., 1969, vol. 40(3), pp. 1402–03. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1657689.CrossRef
73.
go back to reference S. Mobilio, F. Boscherini, and C. Meneghini: Synchrotron Radiation Basics, Methods and Applications, Springer, Berlin, 2015.CrossRef
74.
go back to reference S. Bajt and A.L. Hanson: Rev. Sci. Instrum., 1995, vol. 66(2), pp. 1502–04. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1145889.CrossRef
75.
go back to reference S. Shen, J. Zhou, C.L. Dong, Y. Hu, E. Nestor Tseng, P. Guo, L. Guo, and S.S. Mao: Sci. Rep., 2014, vol. 4, p. 6627. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep06627.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
76.
go back to reference N. Naveas, R. Pulido, C. Marini, J. Hernández-Montelongo, and M.M. Silván: iScience, 2023, vol. 26, p. 2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2023.106033.CrossRef
77.
go back to reference Z. Wu, A. Mottana, A. Marcelli, C.R. Natoli, and E. Paris: Phys. Chem. Miner., 1996, vol. 23, pp. 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00220730.CrossRef
78.
go back to reference D. Li, G.M. Bancroft, M.E. Fleet, and X.H. Feng: Phys. Chem. Miner., 1995, vol. 22(2), pp. 115–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00202471.CrossRef
79.
go back to reference T.N. Tran, T.V.A. Pham, M.L.P. Le, T.P.T. Nguyen, and V.M. Tran: Adv. Nat. Sci. Nanosci. Nanotechnol., 2013, vol. 4, p. 4. https://doi.org/10.1088/2043-6262/4/4/045007.CrossRef
80.
go back to reference M. Ocaña, V. Fornés, and C.J. Serna: J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 1989, vol. 107, pp. 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3093(89)90461-4.CrossRef
82.
go back to reference Y. Wang, A. Muramatsu, and T. Sugimoto: Colloids Surf. A, 1998, vol. 134(3), pp. 281–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7757(97)00102-7.CrossRef
83.
go back to reference J.R. Ferraro, K. Nakamoto, and C.W. Brown: Introductory Raman Spectroscopy, 2nd ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-254105-6.X5000-8.CrossRef
85.
go back to reference M. Handke: J. Mol. Struct., 1984, vol. 114, pp. 187–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2860(84)87125-2.CrossRef
86.
go back to reference X.F. Qu, Q.Z. Yao, G.T. Zhou, S.Q. Fu, and J.L. Huang: J. Phys. Chem. C, 2010, vol. 114(19), pp. 8734–40. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp912278r.CrossRef
87.
go back to reference R. Jaiswal and K.V.S. Ranganath: J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym. Mater., 2021, vol. 31(12), pp. 4504–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10904-021-02062-6.CrossRef

Premium Partners

IST - International Surface Technology (Link opens in a new window)

The leading magazine for all topics related to surface technology.
For decision-makers and users from all areas of industry.

    Image Credits
    Nordson Logo/© Nordson Deutschland GmbH, Ecoclean Logo/© SBS Ecoclean Group, Akzo Nobel Power Coatings GmbH/© Akzo Nobel Power Coatings GmbH, Sames GmbH/© Sames GmbH, Karl Bubenhofer AG/© Karl Bubenhofer AG, Munk GmbH/© Munk GmbH, Endress+Hauser Flow Deutschland/© Endress+Hauser Flow Deutschland, IST - International Surface Technology