## 3 Results  
### Mineralogical Characterization of Clays  
Figure 2 shows morphological patterns of kaolinite and montmorillonite clays as received. For montmorillonite samples (Figure 2a,c), the morphology consists of grains  
with a flat shape and irregular edges, with particle sizes of 5 \(\upmu\)m. Conversely, for kaolinite clay (Figure 2b,d), the morphology consists of a structure of silicate sheets joined together with layers of irregular edges, approximately 1 \(\upmu\)m in length. Kaolinite presents particles of uniform composition and size, suggesting a more homogeneous structure compared to montmorillonite. Figure 3 shows images of the elemental analysis for both kaolinite and montmorillonite clays, and Table 1 presents their chemical composition expressed in weight percent (%). For kaolinite clay (Figure 3a), silicon is the predominant element constituting it, followed by aluminum, with a minor presence of iron and titanium. On the other hand, montmorillonite clay (Figure 3b) exhibits a higher percentage of silicon compared to aluminum, where the sample also contains significant amounts of calcium, magnesium, and minor amounts of sodium. These compositions reflect the distinct mineralogical characteristics of kaolinite and montmorillonite, providing insights into their potential effects and behaviors in mineral processing applications. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Elements** & **Kaolinite, wt\%** & **Montmorillonite, wt\%** \\ \hline Fe & 2.47 & - \\ Al & 44.53 & 21.71 \\ Si & 48.57 & 67.48 \\ Ti & 4.44 & - \\ Na & - & 0.83 \\ Mg & - & 1.81 \\ S & - & 1.91 \\ Ca & - & 6.25 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Chemical composition of kaolinite and montmorillonite clays. Figure 2: SEM images of (a,c) montmorillonite and (b,d) kaolinite clays. XRD analysis was performed to obtain comprehensive characterization of kaolinite and montmorillonite samples, providing valuable insights into their mineralogical composition as shown in Figure 4. The patterns have been analyzed based on Powder Diffraction File (PDF) cards. For the montmorillonite sample (Figure 4a), the results exhibited signals associated with quartz (SiO\({}_{2}\)) (PDF: 05-0490) and three forms of montmorillonite: montmorillonite with a phase composed by MgOAl\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\)SiO\({}_{2}\):xH\({}_{2}\)O (PDF: 03-0014), montmorillonite with sodium content composed by Na\({}_{\rm x}\)(Al, Mg)\({}_{2}\)Si\({}_{4}\)O\({}_{10}\)(OH)\({}_{2}\):xH\({}_{2}\)O (PDF: 12-0204), and montmorillonite with calcium content composed by Ca\({}_{0.2}\)(Al, Mg)\({}_{2}\)Si\({}_{4}\)O\({}_{10}\)(OH)\({}_{2}\):4H\({}_{2}\)O (PDF: 13-0135). Conversely, XRD analysis for the kaolinite sample (Figure 4b) displayed patterns and signals corresponding specifically to kaolinite (PDF: 89-6538) and other minor phases such as quartz (SiO\({}_{2}\)), magnetite (Fe\({}_{3}\)O\({}_{4}\)), anatase (TiO\({}_{2}\)), and rutile (TiO\({}_{2}\)). Kaolinite and montmorillonite, despite their similar phyllosilicate structures, exhibit distinct compositions and morphologies that can significantly impact processing efficiency. In  
Figure 3: Elemental mapping by EDS analysis of **(a)** kaolinite and **(b)** montmorillonite clays. mineral processing operations, the presence of these clays plays a significant role where several challenges such as increased fines, compromised flotation selectivity, and water quality degradation are observed. Kaolinite's ability to reach ultrafine sizes and interfere with bubble movement exacerbates these issues, while its chemical composition, mainly aluminum and silicon, influences its interactions with other minerals and chemicals. Furthermore, montmorillonite, with its diverse elemental composition including calcium, magnesium, and sodium, introduces additional hurdles due to its complex interactions with processing elements, suggesting potential interactions that may influence flotation behavior, rheological properties, and water quality.