XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 2997
(Table 2). The negative adsorption energies across multi-
ple configurations underscore the favorable adsorption of
IPETC on Asp surfaces.
Among the investigated configurations, conf3 of
IPETC-Py and conf1 of IPETC-Asp emerged as the most
stable. Additionally, the observed higher adsorption energy
of IPETC-Py compared to IPETC-Asp indicates a stronger
interaction with Py than Asp. This aligns with findings by
Figure 2. IPETC adsorption on pristine pyrite
Figure 3. IPETC adsorption on pristine Arsenopyrite
Table 2. Adsorption energies of IPETC on FeS2 &FeAsS
Mineral Configuration
Adsorption energy,
kcal/mol
FeS
2 Conf 1 1.91
Conf 2 0.25
Conf 3 -26.12
FeAsS Conf 1 -17.02
Conf 2 -16.20
Conf 3 -16.86
(Table 2). The negative adsorption energies across multi-
ple configurations underscore the favorable adsorption of
IPETC on Asp surfaces.
Among the investigated configurations, conf3 of
IPETC-Py and conf1 of IPETC-Asp emerged as the most
stable. Additionally, the observed higher adsorption energy
of IPETC-Py compared to IPETC-Asp indicates a stronger
interaction with Py than Asp. This aligns with findings by
Figure 2. IPETC adsorption on pristine pyrite
Figure 3. IPETC adsorption on pristine Arsenopyrite
Table 2. Adsorption energies of IPETC on FeS2 &FeAsS
Mineral Configuration
Adsorption energy,
kcal/mol
FeS
2 Conf 1 1.91
Conf 2 0.25
Conf 3 -26.12
FeAsS Conf 1 -17.02
Conf 2 -16.20
Conf 3 -16.86