## 4 Results
### Diamagnetic Sub-Samples
Regarding the REEs composition in these sub-samples, the analytical results are reported in Table 9. It was observed that the REEs content was lower in the light fractions (\(\Sigma\)REE = 29 \(\pm\) 0 ppm) and increased in the intermediate fractions (\(\Sigma\)REE = 36 \(\pm\) 5 ppm) up to reaching maximum values in the heavy fraction (\(\Sigma\)REE = 41 \(\pm\) 7 ppm). As for the thorium concentration, the trend mirrored what was observed for the REEs: lower concentrations were observed in the light fractions (2.2 \(\pm\) 0.3 ppm), increasing in the intermediate fractions (3.6 \(\pm\) 1.2 ppm), and reaching the maximum in the heavy fractions (6.2 \(\pm\) 2.2 ppm). Regarding uranium, in the light fractions averaged 1.1 \(\pm\) 0.6 ppm, in the intermediate fractions was 1.1 \(\pm\) 0.6 ppm, while slightly higher concentrations were observed in the heavy fractions (1.8 \(\pm\) 0.7 ppm). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**wt.\%** & **Light** & **Intermediate** & **Heavy** \\ \hline SiO\({}_{2}\) & 78.09 \(\pm\) 0.60 & 77.9 \(\pm\) 0.62 & 78.17 \(\pm\) 0.74 \\ TiO\({}_{2}\) & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.02 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.00 \\ Al\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 11.99 \(\pm\) 0.43 & 12.04 \(\pm\) 0.42 & 11.98 \(\pm\) 0.55 \\ Fe\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.03 \\ MnO & - & - & - \\ MgO & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.07 \(\pm\) 0.05 \\ CaO & 1.39 \(\pm\) 0.14 & 1.44 \(\pm\) 0.14 & 1.45 \(\pm\) 0.15 \\ Na\({}_{2}\)O & 3.39 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 3.44 \(\pm\) 0.19 & 3.47 \(\pm\) 0.20 \\ K\({}_{2}\)O & 4.38 \(\pm\) 0.42 & 4.34 \(\pm\) 0.47 & 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.48 \\ P\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{5}\) & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ L.O.I. & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.09 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Mean (\(\pm\)std. dev.) composition of the diamagnetic sub-samples (9 analyzed sub-samples per fraction); dashes indicate a value below the detection limit. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**wt.\%** & **Light** & **Intermediate** & **Heavy** \\ \hline Quartz & 39.0 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 38.7 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 39.6 \(\pm\) 2.0 \\ Orthoclase & 25.9 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 25.7 \(\pm\) 2.8 & 24.2 \(\pm\) 2.8 \\ Albite & 28.7 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 29.1 \(\pm\)1.6 & 29.4 \(\pm\) 1.7 \\ Anorthite & 4.6 \(\pm\) 1.1 & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.9 & 5.0 \(\pm\) 1.0 \\ Total & 98.2 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 98.0 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 98.2 \(\pm\) 0.4 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Mean (\(\pm\)std. dev.) quartz, orthoclase, albite, and anorthite abundances obtained by CIPW norm calculation in diamagnetic fractions (9 analyzed sub-sample per fraction). In relation to the percentage yield of the different fractions obtained through the aforementioned process, it was found that the crushing powder, overall, constituted a significant portion of the total material, averaging 21.6 \(\pm\) 7.7 wt.% (Table 10). The yield of the material obtained through the subsequent steps of the processing process was, on average, distributed as follows: 66.4 \(\pm\) 6.5 wt.%--light diamagnetic fraction; 1.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 wt.%--intermediate diamagnetic fraction; 2.1 \(\pm\) 1.0 wt.%--heavy diamagnetic fraction (Table 10). Overall, the yield of the various diamagnetic fractions accounted for 70.0 \(\pm\) 6.8 wt.%, which, when added to the percentage of crushing powder, represented 91.7 \(\pm\) 1.7 wt.% of the initial material (Table 10). The remaining portion of the material was instead represented by the ferromagnetic and paramagnetic fractions.