Alfred University

Lab Report 4
Five Factors Controlling Suspension Stability

Timothy Mayo
CEMS 203: Powder Processing
Dr. Carty
04/20/2020
Abstract:

A study was made of the influence that particle-particle interactions, particle concentration,

particle size and distribution, particle morphology, and the rheology of the suspension medium,

have on an aqueous alumina suspension. Three stabilization techniques were used to determine

the different ways colloids interact. The electrostatic method caused suspension stability at a pH

of 4, which follows trends previously established. Through the addition of 0.4 mg/m2 of NH4-

PMAA the alumina suspension had reached peak dispersion. Two salts were added to the

suspension and yielded stability at differing concentrations. More of the first ionic salt (NaCl)

was needed to cause coagulation than the second salt (MgCl2). As each of the other four factors

were altered, the interaction between particles changed. Particle-particle interaction is dependent

on the other four factors.

Introduction:

To obtain the desired properties in ceramic powders, the five factors that control suspension

rheology must be considered. These five factors determine the most direct measure of suspension

stability, specifically, viscosity. The most prominent of these factors is particle-particle

interactions, followed by particle concentration, particle size and distribution, particle

morphology, and finally the rheology of the suspension medium, in order of importance.

Particle-particle interactions, also known as colloidal behavior, can be manipulated through

electrostatic stabilization, steric stabilization, electrosteric stabilization, and ionic strength

effects. These techniques are only applicable for particles that are small enough to be affected by

Brownian Motion.
 To keep particles from agglomerating, three methods were introduced to reduce the

effects of the van der Waals forces that are responsible for overtaking the particles. The effects

of electrostatic stabilization, electrosteric stabilization, and ionic strength were analyzed in three

separate lab experiments on a suspension with alumina powder. Electrostatic stabilization is most

commonly performed in water but can be used in other polar suspension mediums.1 This method

is created though the application of charge on the particles surface through the addition of

hydron and hydroxide ions. Changing the pH of the solution acidic causes a positive surface

potential. This potential attracts counter-ions from the surrounding solution. As the counter-ions

surround the particle, it causes a shear plane with an electrical potential known as ζ-potential.

The magnitude of the ζ-potential is dependent on the magnitude of the van der Waals attractive

potential and the Hamaker constant. With an increase in the ζ-potential, a decrease in viscosity

will be observed. As the pH approaches the iso-electric point (i.e.p.), the viscosity will increase.

The second dispersion method analyzed is known as electrosteric stabilization and

involves the adsorption of a charged polymer, or polyelectrolyte, on the particles surface. It is a

function of the particles surface area. As the surface area increases, the amount of polymer

needed for effective dispersion also increases. This polymer is chosen based on its affinity for the

particle. A higher affinity occurs when the surface of the particle has the opposite charge of the

polymer. The most common anionic group attached to the polymer is a carboxylic acid group. To

achieve the most effective dispersion, the polymer, which is adsorbed to the particles surface,

must assume a fully extended configuration. This configuration is achieved when there is the

correct amount of electrostatic repulsion, that is, when there is an increased number of charged

sites.1 It is important to note that the polymer is often dissociated in a neutral pH range, which is
frequently near the i.e.p. and point of zero charge (pzc). Electrosteric stabilization eliminates the

aging process that is present in electrostatic stabilization.

The final stabilization technique analyzed was the effect of ionic strength. The ionic

strength of a suspension can affect both of the other stabilization techniques. Increasing the ionic

strength causes the double-layer to compress resulting in the reduction of suspension stability.

Furthermore, as the double-layer compresses the ζ-potential decreases in value causing an

increase in suspension viscosity. The magnitude ζ-potential provides insight to the critical

coagulation concentration (CCC) of a certain powder. The CCC is the minimum ionic

concentration necessary to cause a noticeable change in the suspension’s behavior.1

The particle concentration of a suspension is the second most prominent and can be

manipulated by increasing or decreasing the number of particles present. Surface area of the

powder increases with concentration. In addition, more dispersant is required for a suspension

which has a larger surface area. As concentration increases, the average water surrounding each

particle decreases. This causes more frequent particle interactions and ultimately agglomeration.

This factor can be manipulated quite easily compared to the others due to the simplicity of just

adding more powder to a suspension.

Particle size and distribution is slightly more difficult to change. To change the size and

distribution of a suspension, different sized particles must be mixed instead of just one. Particle

size and viscosity are inversely related, that is, as particle size increases viscosity decreases.

Larger particles have a lower specific surface area than smaller ones. An increase in packing

efficiency due to a broader distribution results in a more stable suspension. This factor does not

contribute to the overall suspension stability as much as the first two factors do.
 Testing particle morphology and rheology of the suspension medium was not feasible

with the materials available. Particle morphology cannot be altered due to a lack of equipment

capable of changing the particles shape. The milling process used to prepare the samples of

alumina may change the particle size but are unable to change the particles average shape. Due

to this the effects of the particle morphology remain relatively constant. Rheology of the

suspension medium is difficult to alter in lab because there are not many other substances other

than water that work well with ceramics. A polar suspension medium is necessary to perform

many of the stabilization techniques already mentioned, so other mediums such as lubricating oil

would be a poor choice.

By manipulating these five factors it is possible to produce a wide range of ceramics. For

example, when a colloidal suspension is consolidated to a higher green density, the compact can

densify at lower temperatures creating higher density ceramics.1 Furthermore, a higher green

density can cause a ceramic to have fewer defects. Rheological measurements could also be

made to help design and improve slip casting techniques.

Experimental Results:

1) Particle-Particle Interactions:

Electrostatic Stabilization:

The effect of increasing the pH of a 35 vol % suspension of alumina with a S.A of 7.8

m2/g on the viscosity was determined experimentally. An increase in pH caused an increase in

the viscosity of the suspension resulting in a sharp increase in dispersion in the pH range of 2-5.

Viscosity then sharply increased after the pH of five, that is, an increase was recorded in a pH

ranging from 5-10.5. Viscosity patterns at a given pH can be seen in Figure 1, in line with
previous observations made from groups that conducted the same experiment in 2018 and 2012.

From this data it was ascertainable that the pH at which maximum stabilization occurred was 4

for the measurements taken in 2020 and 2012. For a comparison of 2020 and results found in

previous years regarding the effect pH has on viscosity see Table I, located in the appendix.

1000000

100000
Appartent Viscosity (cP)

10000

1000 2020
2018
100
2012

10

1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
pH

Figure 1: The viscosity of aqueous alumina suspensions illustrating

electrostatic stabilization experiments done in three separate years to
a 35 vol % suspension of alumina with a S.A. of 7.8m2/g at 1 RPM.

Electrosteric Stabilization:

The effects of an increase dispersant level on suspension stability using NH4-PMAA at a

constant pH of 8.5 for a 35 vol % suspension of alumina with a S.A. of 7.8m2/g can be seen in

Figure 2. An increase in dispersant level from 0.1 mg/m2 to 0.4 mg/m2 yielded an average

decrease in suspension viscosity for the 2020 data. This is shown to follow previous trends which

were found when this stabilization technique was performed in years past. Suspension stability

was achieved at 0.4 mg/m2 for the 2020 and 2018 tests, and at 0.5mg/m2 for the 2012 test. This

data can be found in Table II in the appendix. Increasing the level of dispersant passed this point
caused the suspension to exceed the CCC, causing the suspension to increase in viscosity,

indicating a decrease in suspension stability.

100000

10000
Apparent Viscosity (cP)

1000
2020
100 2018
2012
10

1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Dispersant Level (mg/m2)

Figure 2: The viscosity of aqueous alumina suspensions demonstrating

the electrosteric stabilization techniques. The polyelectrolyte used was
NH4-PMAA at a pH of 8.5 for a 35 vol % suspension with a S.A of 7.8
m2/g. All data points were measured at 1 RPM.

Ionic Strength:

An increase in the concentration of ions in a 35 vol % suspension of alumina caused an

increase in suspension viscosity. The CCC was exceeded near a concentration of 100mM of

NaCl. The suspension was considered stable until it reached this point and the viscosity rapidly

increased indicating a major decrease in suspension stability. Similar results were found in

previous years with the addition of the same type of salt. In the 1997 and 2018 studies, it was

found that the suspension exceeded the CCC in the ranges of 20mM-80.21mM and 20mM-

100mM, respectively. The suspensions had a comparatively low viscosity before the CCC,

indicating the suspensions were stable up to that point. The effect that MgCl2 had on viscosity
was also determined. At a lower concentration of this salt it was possible to create a suspension

with a lower viscosity. In addition, it was found that at 100mM, the suspension with MgCl2 was

over 80 times more viscus than the one containing NaCl. Figure 3 illustrates the stability regions

of the suspensions which are noticeable by their “wells”. Table III and Table IV present the

effect changes ionic strength have on the viscosity of a suspension and can be found in the

appendix.

1000000

100000
Apparent Viscosity (cP)

10000

1000 NaCl 2020

NaCl 2018
100
NaCl 1997
10 MgCl2 1996
MgCl2 1997
1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Ionic Strength (mM)

Figure 3: The viscosity of an aqueous alumina suspension illustrating

ionic strength effects of NaCl and MgOCl2. (35 vol %, 7.8m2/g)

2) Particle Concentration:
The addition of alumina particles to the dispersed suspension resulted in an increase in

particle interactions which, in turn, increased the viscosity. The same is true for the flocculated

suspension, but agglomeration started to occur at a much lower concentration and with a much

higher viscosity. Viscosity in the flocculated suspension was continuously greater than the

dispersed due to the van der Waals attractive which was more predominant in the former. Figure

4 illustrates the effect particle concentration has on the two aqueous solutions of alumina. The

data was extracted from four separate experiments that were conducted in separate years. A trend
can be noticed in both suspensions; as both types increase in particle concentration, there is a

point at which the viscosity of the dispersed suspension will equal that of the flocculated

suspension. This value can be estimated by drawing a line of best fit for each suspension type.

The same level of stability can be achieved at a solid concentration of approximately 50 vol %.

1000000

100000
Apparent Viscosity (cP)

10000

1000

100

10 Dispersed
Flocculated
1
10 20 30 40 50
Particle Concentration (vol %)

Figure 4: The effect of particle concentration on viscosity of aqueous

alumina from suspensions created in 1997, 2018, and 2020. Two cases
are represented, one being dispersed using PMAA at a level of 0.5
mg/m2, and one flocculated where dispersants and pH were not used.

3) Particle Size and Distribution:

The effect of bimodal particle size on suspension viscosity can be seen in Figure 5. As A-16

S.G. (fine particles) is mixed with A-10 (coarse particles) the viscosity of the suspension varies

depending on the percentage of large particles. Viscosity decreased with an increase in course

particles due to an observable increase in S.A. A concentration of 100% A-16 S.G. resulted in

the largest viscosity, indicating a suspension with more drag caused by the particles. To achieve

a suspension with the highest stability, a mix consisting of 80% course particles was used. Spring

2020 data is shown alongside data from years past to give evidence to repeatable results under
the same conditions. These results distinguish particle size and distribution as one of the five

factors that control suspension rheology.

1.E+05
Apparent Viscosity (@ RPM=1; mPa·s)

Fall, 1996
1.E+04
Spring,
1997
Spring,
2020
1.E+03

1.E+02

1.E+01
0 20 40 60 80 100
A-10 Concentration (%)

Figure 5: The effect particle size and distribution have on the

viscosity of a 45 vol % suspension containing a mix of A-10 and A-16
S.G. The course and fine particles have S.A.’s of 1.5m2/g and 7.8m2/g,
respectively.

Discussion of Results:

Particle-Particle interactions:

There are forces that impact particles in a colloidal suspension. First are the interactions

between the particles in suspension. The properties of the suspension medium dictate the

polarizability, which is responsible for the overall repulsion or attraction between the particles.2

Attractive forces can arise from present van der Waals attraction between particles, or from

electrostatic attraction created through the opposite charges on the particles surface. Repulsive
forces occur as a result of the different stabilization techniques utilized to form a stable colloidal

suspension. The presence of osmotic pressure differences in the chemical potential due to the

ionic concentration gradients in the fluid surrounding each particle is the actual reason for the

repulsive forces.1 It is when the magnitude of the attractive force is greater than that of the

repulsive forces that flocculation and agglomeration occur. This attractive force is a function of

several variables including each of the five factors that are known to control suspension

rheology. Ultimately, each of the five factors were evaluated separately, holding all other factors

constant, to paint a picture of how each factor contributes to the overall stability of a colloidal

suspension. The three stabilization techniques effect on suspension stability can be summed up in

Table V.

Table V: Stabilization techniques and their impact on rheology.

Factor Technique Impact on
Rheology
Particle-Particle Increase in pH ↑↑
Interactions
Electrostatic Decrease in pH ↓
Stabilization
Electrosteric Increase in polymer ↑↑
Stabilization concentration. (Extended
Configuration)
- Increase in polymer ↑
concentration (Balled up)
Ionic strength High concentration of ↑
salt (Before CCC)
- After CCC ↑↑↑

The three methods that were used to alter the particle-particle interactions of the

suspension were electrostatic stabilization, electrosteric stabilization, and the effect of ionic

strength. The first method used experimentally was electrostatic stabilization, in which the effect

of increasing the pH of a 35 vol % suspension of alumina with a S.A of 7.8 m2/g on the viscosity
was determined. The results are constant with that of literature and previous labs, which were

addressed alongside current results in the Discussion of Results section. The results from the

previous labs were selected to provide a baseline for current experiments being conducted as

well as to help identify any error that may have been introduced throughout the experimental

process. The increase in viscosity of the suspension was caused by the attractive forces

previously mentioned. In the results it was identified that the suspension had reached its

maximum stability region at a pH of 4. This is the point at which, due to the charge introduced,

the magnitude of the repulsive forces between particles is greater than that of the attractive

forces, but not great enough for the movement of particles to be severely restricted. The increase

in viscosity measured after maximizing the stability was caused by the latter part of the previous

sentence, as well as an increase in counter ions in suspension which serve to compress the double

layer causing the reduction in suspension stability.

The second mode of testing the affects of particle-particle interactions on suspension

stability is through the use of electrosteric stabilization. The increase in suspension stability seen

was due to polymers which had adsorbed to the particles surface and then dissociated to create a

charge capable of repulsion. There is also steric interaction which occurs as a result of the

surfactants; however, this effect is small compared to the former. It was at a polymer level of 0.4

mg/m2, that generated the most ideal level of dispersion. As the addition of polymer exceeded

that which is necessary to produce stability, a dramatic increase in viscosity was measured due to

four possible reasons. The first and most likely is the addition of the excess number of counter-

ions introduced as a result of charges being present on the polymer before application. This

increase in counter-ions exceeds the CCC, causing coagulation.1 As the concentration of polymer

increases it is also possible for flocculation to occur as a result of depletion flocculation and
bridge flocculation. The former is caused when depletion layers overlap and induce an indirect

attraction between the particles, causing flocculation. The latter is caused when polymers are so

concentrated that they “anchor particles together.”2 It is probable that these are the reasons for

the dramatic increase in viscosity seen after stabilization.

The third method used to alter how particles interact with one another was the effect of

changing ionic strength. Multiple suspensions were created with differing concentrations of NaCl

and MgCl2. Initially, an increase in ionic concentration resulted in a decrease in viscosity. This

can be attributed to the same repulsive forces as seen in electrostatic stabilization. However, as

the concentration of ions increase, the double layer became compressed, resulting in a decrease

in dispersion. Agglomeration occurred when the suspension exceeded its CCC and became

unstable. There are two main reasons why this is the case, the first being the magnitude and sign

of the ζ-potential and valency of the counter ion.1 The second is ion size, the CCC will increase

with ion size due to the diffusion and friction coefficients of charged particles that are affected

by the presence of their own double layers.3 In both of these cases it is assumed that the salt acts

as an indifferent electrolyte, meaning that it has a specific affinity for the particles surface.

However, the use of MgCl2 caused the suspension to exceed its CCC at a much lower

concentration than that of NaCl. This was due to the magnitude of the ζ-potential of MgCl2 being

much smaller than NaCl.

There are many possible sources of error that come about when testing each of these

techniques, however, since the 2020 data followed the trends set forth in previous years, it was

difficult to locate a direct source of error. Common error found in the stabilization techniques are

aging, incorrect assumptions, and electrolyte contamination, to name a few. Aging typically

occurs when chemical reactions involving water and the surface of the particles corrode the
surface through a dissolution process.1 However, a more likely scenario is that the assumption

that all particle sizes remain homogenous throughout the viscosity measurement process is

incorrect. As a suspension sits undisturbed, larger particles and flocs, fall out of suspension

which alters particle size and concentration. In addition, slight electrolyte contamination can

cause a large decrease in viscosity.

Particle Concentration:

The second factor, particle-concentration, decreases suspension stability when the

increase in surface area is too great for the particles to remain dispersed. This happens because

the amount of dispersant needed to keep particles from flocculating increases as surface area

increases. The influence of particle concentration on the stability of a suspension is best

determined in relation to the maximum packing fraction.2 There is a point at which particles

“lock up” due to friction throughout the suspension. As the collisions between particles increase,

there comes a point where flow would be impossible i.e. the viscosity of the suspension would

climb to infinity. Table VI illustrates the magnitude of the effect concentration has on rheology.

The results yielded in this experiment clearly indicate this to be true considering both flocculated

and dispersed suspensions increase dramatically from a small increase in particle concentration.

The alumina suspensions created each differed in concentration by five volume percent in order

to determine the effect concentration has on suspension rheology. With each incremental

increase in concentration, there was a decrease in excess fluid available for the particles to move

past each other, hence the term “locking up.”

 Table VI: Effect concentration has on rheology.
Factor Change Impact on
Rheology
Particle High concentration ↑↑↑
Concentration
- Low concentration ↓↓

Particle concentration is susceptible to major contributions of error. The most prominent

of these are the effect of evaporation, and the assumption that all of the other factors controlling

suspension rheology are negligible. Ultrasonicating the suspension causes the temperature to

increase enough to amplify the rate of evaporation. A slight change in the amount of water in

suspension could create a major increase in viscosity. Furthermore, the assumption that the size

of particles in suspension are uniform is inaccurate. Even with advanced methods of milling it is

not possible to create powder with perfectly homogenous particle sizes. Suspensions with a

variety of particle sizes have a larger packing efficiency than unary particle systems resulting in

fewer pore spaces, which in turn results in a higher apparent viscosity.

Particle Size and Distribution:

The effect of bimodal particle size on suspension stability was analyzed by measuring

viscosity changes. The coarse particle introduced to the suspension was A-10, which had a

specific surface area of 1.5m2/g. The fine particle was A-16 S.G. and had a specific surface area

5 times larger at 7.8 m2/g. As the percentage of course particles approach 100%, viscosity will

decrease due to fewer particle collisions. When particles do not pack efficiently there are a high

number of pore spaces which can be filled with water. As particles increase in size, they are less

susceptible to interparticle forces such as Brownian motion. As the distribution tends more

towards a suspension with 100% fine particles, the packing efficiency decreases, and the amount
of water necessary for the particles to move freely increases. The result of this is an increase in

the amount of collisions between particles leading to an increase in viscosity. These results of

this analysis align with data from previous years. The decrease in viscosity with an increase in

particle size has been shown to be consistent throughout literature.

Table VII: Effect particle size and distribution has on rheology.

Factor Change Impact on
Rheology
- Narrow distribution ↑↑
- Broaden distribution ↓
- Reduce particle size ↑
- Increase particle size ↓
Blend particle size R > 10r ↓
R = Large radius. R < 10r No change
r = small radius

Any significant deviation from historical trends can be attributed to the preparation of the

particles used in the analysis. For example, the alumina used in a suspension in the spring of

1997 may vary in average size and distribution from the powder created for the current analysis.

The current data is more closely related to that of the study done in 1998; not to indicate that the

1997 data doesn’t follow the general trend, but to provide an explanation for the slight increase

in viscosity seen from this study after 80% course particles were introduced to the suspension.

The second most apparent source of error is assuming the charges on all particles are equal and

that the same charge on the particles were introduced to each suspension in the respective years

in which they were conducted.

Factors 4 & 5:

While the effects of particle morphology and rheology of the suspension medium were

not directly measured, they still contributed to the stability effects of the other factors tested. The
concentration of particles capable of being in solution is partially dependent on particle

morphology. Higher suspension concentrations are possible with spherical particles compared to

suspensions with other morphologies.1 This characteristic is mainly attributed to the lower

surface to volume ratio. A non-spherical particle of similar size would have a larger specific

surface area, thus requiring more water, at the same concentration of particles, to achieve

suspension stability. The suspension medium used in all experiments was an aqueous one, and

therefore this factor did not alter the others, except for the case when there was an excess amount

of polymer in solution. Tables VIII and Table IX show the effect factors 4 and 5 have on

rheology, respectively.

Table VIII: Effect particle shape has on rheology.

Factor Change Impact on
Rheology
Particle Irregular shape ↑
Morphology
- Spherical shape ↓

Table IX: Effect suspension medium has on rheology.

Factor Change Impact on
Rheology
Suspension Lubricating Oil ↑
Rheology
- Water No change
on its own.
Polymer Stable ↓
Concentration concentration
of
polyelectrolytes
- Precipitated ↑
polyelectrolytes
Overall Suspension Rheology:

The stability of a suspension can be characterized as the point at which the lowest

viscosity is attained. Viscosity can be controlled by altering the five factors. Particle-particle

interactions is considered the most important factor, meaning it has the greatest influence on the

suspension rheology. This factor is a function of all other factors, that is, changing any of the

other factors alters how particles interact with one another. Increasing the concentration of

particles causes an increase in particle interactions due to there being more particles in closer

proximity to each other. This increase in interaction causes an increase in viscosity which

signifies a decrease in suspension stability. The increase in viscosity can also be attributed to a

decrease in the excess water necessary for the particles to move past one another in the shear

plane.

As particles contact each other it is important to consider the particles size and

distribution. Particle size determines the amount of water necessary to fill the pore space. The

size distribution and morphology of a particle play an important role in how pore spaces are

filled, how the packing efficiency changes, and ultimately how particles interact with one

another. The rheology of the suspension medium dictates how particles introduced to that

suspension will behave. An aqueous suspension has a high degree of polarizability which allows

particles to interact freely with one another.

The five factors can be manipulated to solve ceramic forming processing problems by

changing the way particles interact with each other in a suspension. By creating a dispersed

suspension, it is possible to reduce colloidal interactions which would allow it to exhibit

Newtonian behavior. If the interaction between particles is strong, the suspensions viscosity

would tent toward infinity indicating it acts like a solid. A viscus suspension likely means
agglomeration had occurred which could cause problems during the casting process. Other

properties can be attained by altering the suspension rheology such as densification at lower

temperatures.

Conclusion:

Evaluation of the influence of the five factors was emphasized throughout the report. By

increasing the pH of an aqueous alumina suspension to 4, the highest degree of stability was

achieved. Stability was also achieved by dispersing the same type of suspension using 0.4 mg/m2

of NH4-PMAA. The last stabilization technique used to stabilize a suspension was changing the

ionic strength. An increase in concentration of MgCl2 in solution causes stability at a lower

concentration that than of NaCl. Particle concentration was shown to have a significant impact

on particle collisions. An increase in concentration caused an increase in viscosity signifying a

decrease in suspension stability. Particle packing played in important role in altering the

rheology of a suspension. A decrease in particle size was shown to increase viscosity, while a

distribution of 80% course particles was found to increase stability. Its concluded that factors 2-5

played a crucial role in determining how particles interact with one another and ultimately

control the stability of a suspension.

Works Cited:
1) 1. Carty, William M. Introduction to Ceramic Powder Processing. New York State

College of Ceramics at Alfred University, 2020.

2) Barnes, Howard A., et al. An Introduction to Rheology. Elsevier, 1989

3) 2. Ven, T.G.M Van De. “On the Role of Ion Size in Coagulation” Journal of Colloid and

Interface Science, Academic Press, 21 July 2004.

Appendix:

Table I: Experimental data regarding the effect pH has on viscosity

2020 2018 2012

pH Actual Viscosity (cP) pH Actual Viscosity (cP) pH Actual Viscosity (cP)

(1 RPM) (1 RPM) (1 RPM)
n/a 4193.4 1.89 2.69E+03 1.09 2.61E+04
3.00 3472.3 3.13 2.18E+03 3.31 9.39E+03
4.02 3015.6 4.03 3.98E+02 3.96 4.64E+03
5.02 4171.8 5.3 4.82E+02 5.88 4.01E+05
6.04 366586 5.95 2.29E+05 8.83 3.22E+05
6.96 303844 6.99 2.99E+05 11.08 9.06E+04
8.35 161459 9.1 2.00E+05 11.97 1.24E+05
9.25 316415 - - - -
10.51 179069 - - - -

Table II: Experimental data regarding the effect of dispersant level on viscosity. (PMAA)
2020 2018 2012

Dispersant Dispersant Dispersant

Level Viscosity (cP) Level Viscosity (cP) Level Viscosity (cP)
(mg/m2) (1 RPM) (mg/m2) at 1 RPM (mg/m2) (1 RPM)
0.1 22473 0.1 1.20E+05 0.1 1.20E+04
0.2 22438 0.2 3.96E+03 0.2 1.71E+04
0.3 2799.9 0.3 1.07E+03 0.3 2.68E+03
0.4 1829 0.35 3.44E+02 0.4 1.57E+03
0.5 5503.5 0.4 5.00E+02 0.5 3.75E+03
0.6 2689.9 0.45 7.52E+02 0.6 4.48E+03
0.7 3169.5 0.50 4.27E+03 0.7 3.91E+03
0.8 4156.4 0.60 - 0.8 5.57E+03
0.9 4045.4 0.70 - - -
Table III: The relationship between ionic concentration of NaCl and viscosity of a suspension.
2020 2018 1997

Viscosity Viscosity Viscosity

Concentration (cP) Concentration (cP) Concentration (cP)
(mM) of NaCl (1 RPM) (mM) of NaCl 1 RPM (mM) (1 RPM)
10 2604.5 10 2.60E+03 49.98 3.52E+03
30 2230.3 20 2.23E+03 80.21 7.16E+03
100 3738.3 100 3.74E+03 125.00 1.07E+04
300 21941 300 2.19E+04 200.00 1.39E+04
1000 38549 - - 302.43 2.04E+04
- - - - 500.00 2.65E+04

Table IV: Raw data from the analysis done on ionic strength using MgCl2 as the ionic salt.
1996 1997

Viscosity (cP) Viscosity (cP)

Concentration of Concentration of
MgCl2 (mM) 1 RPM MgCl2 (mM) 1 RPM
5 2.63E+03 2.32 4.26E+02
20 2.52E+03 5.03 1.75E+03
35 1.65E+03 12.49 1.40E+04
50 3.13E+04 19.97 6.72E+03
75 3.47E+05 31.86 5.46E+04
100 3.17E+05 49.72 1.15E+05