Journal of Materials Science

, Volume 41, Issue 16, pp 5257–5262 | Cite as

Characterisation of aqueous suspensions of fumed aluminium oxide in presence of two Dolapix dispersants

  • S. GaydardzhievEmail author
  • P. Ay


The stability of a fumed aluminium oxide nano powder suspended in water has been assessed through measurement of zeta potential and streaming current, using the fact that the particles exhibit maximum repulsion at high magnitude of charge. Two commercial dispersants belonging to a Dolapix series have been tested. Dolapix CE 64 has shown a better deflocculating action than Dolapix A 88. The iso electric point of the powder suspension has been found close to pH 9. A notable shift in the pH of iso electric point when Dolapix CE 64 was present, indicating that the interaction between particles and dispersant has involved chemical sorption. It has been found out, that at the relative low solids loading studied and within the limits of the pH measurement accuracy, a dispersant supplied in dose levels from 12 to 24 mg/g, has confined the pH of iso electric point to a relatively narrow range. A capillary suction time technique has been tried for evaluation of suspension fluidity as function of dispersant concentration and pH. For the dispersant stabilised suspensions, a correlation between their capillary suction time and pH of iso electric point has been documented.


Zeta Potential Fumed Silica Volumetric Titration Powder Suspension Measure Particle Size Distribution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank the Degussa AG for the powder samples and Dr. W. Wiehe for the raster electron microscopy.


  1. 1.
    Batz-Sohn C (2003) Part Part Syst Charact 20:370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gunko VM, Zarko VI, Leboda R, Chibowski E (2001) Adv Coll Interf Sci 91:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waite TD (1999) Coll Surf A: Physicochem Eng Asp 151:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Albano M, Garrido L (2002) J Mater Synth Proc 10(4):211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Singh BP, Bhattacharjee S, Besra L (2002) Ceram Intern 28:413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pretto M, Costa A, Landi E, Tampieri A, Galassi C (2003) J Am Ceram Soc 86:1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barthel H, Heinemann M, Stintz M, Wessely B (1998) Chem Eng Tech 21:745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wäsche R, Haito M, Hackley V (2002) Powd Techn 123:275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Günther L, Peukert W (2002) Part Part Syst Charact 19:312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waite TD (1999) Coll Surf A: Phys Chem Asp 151:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steinborn G, Wäsche R (2000) In: Proceedings of Mütek-Malvern Workshop. Potsdam, Germany, March 2000Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mineral ProcessingBrandenburg Technical University – CottbusCottbusGermany

Personalised recommendations