## 3 Results
### Asphal Emulsions' Characteristics  
The breaking values obtained were 121.9 for Emulsion 1 and 158.3 for Emulsion 2. According to the EN 13808 standard, the emulsions can be classified as class 4 for the breaking value parameter (values between 110 and 195). The asphalt content and the emulsifier's amount and type influence the emulsion's breaking value. Therefore, emulsions with the same classification but different suppliers may have different breaking values. The adhesion value obtained for Emulsion 1 was 90%, and for Emulsion 2, it was 75%. Concerning the EN 13808 standard for this parameter, Emulsion 2 can be classified as class 2 (\(\geq\)75%), while Emulsion 1 belongs to class 3 (\(\geq\)90%). These results align \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Time** & **Emulsion 1** & **Emulsion 2** \\ \hline After 6 h & 95\% & 90\% \\ After 24 h & 70\% & 50\% \\ After 48 h & 50\% & 30\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Result of the affinity test between the basalt aggregate and the studied emulsions. Figure 4: Aggregate gradation adopted for each microsurfacing asphalt mixture. Figure 5: Example of basalt aggregates surface covered with bitumen when using Emulsion 1 after the following testing periods: (**a**) 6 h, (**b**) 24 h, and (**c**) 48 h.  
with those previously obtained when studying the aggregates' affinity to both emulsions (EN 12697-11). After the binder recovery by evaporation, characterization tests were carried out. The results are shown in Figure 6. Regarding the EN 13808 standard for cationic asphalt emulsions, the penetration values of the bitumen recovered from the two studied emulsions can be classified as class 3 (\(\leq\)100 \(\times\) 0.1 mm). Regarding the softening temperature result, the Emulsion 1 bitumen belongs to class 3 (T\({}_{\text{R\&B}}\) \(>\) 55 \({}^{\circ}\)C), and the Emulsion 2 bitumen belongs to class 2 (T\({}_{\text{R\&B}}\) \(>\) 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C). According to the cohesion results, the bitumen recovered from Emulsion 1 had a value greater than 1 J/cm\({}^{2}\) at a temperature of 5 \({}^{\circ}\)C, corresponding to class 4 of the EN 13808 standard. The bitumen recovered from Emulsion 2 did not reach the minimum cohesion value established for this test temperature, corresponding to a lower performance class. The results of the elastic recovery test showed that the bitumen binders recovered from the two studied emulsions belonged to class 5, with values greater than 50%. Figure 7 shows the dynamic viscosity results obtained for both emulsions using the dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) for temperatures up to 88 \({}^{\circ}\)C (parallel plates configuration) and the rotational viscometer for temperatures above 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C (cup and bob configuration). According to the results, it is possible to conclude that at lower temperatures (below 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C), the Emulsion 1 binder presents higher viscosity values. A different behavior was observed above the temperature of 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C: there was a faster decrease in the viscosity with increasing temperature in the Emulsion 1 binder, and the Emulsion 2 binder presented viscosity values that were less susceptible to temperature variations. The master curves of the stiffness modulus and phase angle values obtained in the DSR after carrying out frequency sweep tests at different temperatures under controlled strain levels are presented in Figure 8 for a reference temperature of 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C. The equipment software carried out the time-temperature superposition using the WLF equation because the tests were performed in the linear viscoelastic regime. The stiffness modulus results showed that the binder recovered from Emulsion 1 was stiffer than that recovered from Emulsion 2 at higher frequencies (i.e., above 1 Hz), demonstrating that this binder had a higher strength at temperatures lower than 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C. At higher temperatures, the stiffness of the binder recovered from Emulsion 2 became higher, confirming the viscosity and softening point test results.