Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Manuel, James

  • Google
  • 13
  • 21
  • 166

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (13/13 displayed)

  • 2021Positive Influence of WHIMS Concentrate on the Sintering Performance of Roy Hill Finescitations
  • 2021Positive Influence of WHIMS Concentrate on the Sintering Performance of Roy Hill Finescitations
  • 2021Automated Optical Image Analysis of Iron Ore Sinter12citations
  • 2019Characterisation of phosphorus and other impurities in goethite-rich iron ores – Possible P incorporation mechanisms37citations
  • 2019Totipotent Cellularly-Inspired Materials1citations
  • 2018Importance of textural information in mathematical modelling of iron ore fines sintering performance8citations
  • 2016Mineralogical quantification of iron ore sinter18citations
  • 2015Mineralogical quantification of iron ore sintercitations
  • 2015Automated optical image analysis of natural and sintered iron ore22citations
  • 2014Sintering characteristics of titanium containing iron ores42citations
  • 2013Comparative study of iron ore characterisation using a scanning electron microscope and optical image analysis26citations
  • 2013In situ X-ray and neutron diffraction studies of silico-ferrite of calcium and aluminium iron ore sinter phase formationcitations
  • 2011In situ diffraction studies of phase formation during iron ore sinteringcitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Ware, Natalie
3 / 4 shared
Cao, Xueming
2 / 2 shared
Mcdonald, Brian
2 / 2 shared
Lu, Liming
3 / 8 shared
Mali, Heinrich
1 / 2 shared
Pownceby, Mark
4 / 14 shared
Bueckner, Birgit
1 / 1 shared
Honeyands, Tom
1 / 2 shared
Peterson, Mike
2 / 3 shared
Donskoi, Eugene
6 / 12 shared
Webster, Nathan
3 / 5 shared
Holmes, Ralph
1 / 1 shared
Raynlyn, Tirsha
1 / 1 shared
Dehghan Manshadi, Ali
1 / 2 shared
Austin, Peter
1 / 2 shared
Hapugoda, Sarath
1 / 2 shared
Studer, Andrew
1 / 4 shared
Kimpton, Justin
1 / 3 shared
Fisher-White, Michael
1 / 1 shared
Madsen, Ian
2 / 3 shared
Scarlett, Nicola
1 / 2 shared
Chart of publication period
2021
2019
2018
2016
2015
2014
2013
2011

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Ware, Natalie
  • Cao, Xueming
  • Mcdonald, Brian
  • Lu, Liming
  • Mali, Heinrich
  • Pownceby, Mark
  • Bueckner, Birgit
  • Honeyands, Tom
  • Peterson, Mike
  • Donskoi, Eugene
  • Webster, Nathan
  • Holmes, Ralph
  • Raynlyn, Tirsha
  • Dehghan Manshadi, Ali
  • Austin, Peter
  • Hapugoda, Sarath
  • Studer, Andrew
  • Kimpton, Justin
  • Fisher-White, Michael
  • Madsen, Ian
  • Scarlett, Nicola
OrganizationsLocationPeople

article

Comparative study of iron ore characterisation using a scanning electron microscope and optical image analysis

  • Austin, Peter
  • Manuel, James
  • Peterson, Mike
  • Donskoi, Eugene
  • Hapugoda, Sarath
Abstract

In order to develop downstream processing routines for iron ore and to understand the behaviour of the ore during processing, extensive mineralogical characterisation is required. Microscopic analysis of polished sections is effective to determine mineral associations, mineral liberation and grain size distribution. There are two main imaging techniques used for the characterisation of iron ore, i.e. optical image analysis (OIA) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). In this article, a QEMSCAN system is used as an example of SEM methodology and results obtained from it are compared against results obtained by the CSIRO Recognition3/Mineral3 OIA system. Both OIA and SEM systems have advantages and drawbacks. Even though the latest SEM systems can distinguish between major iron oxides and oxyhydroxides, it is still problematic for SEM systems to distinguish between iron ore minerals very close in oxygen content, e.g. hematite and hydrohematite, or between different types of goethite. Scanning electron microscopy systems also can misidentify minerals with close chemical composition, i.e. hematite as magnetite and vitreous goethite as hematite. In OIA, iron minerals with slight differences in their oxidation or hydration state are more easily and directly recognisable by correlation with their reflectivity. In both methods, the presence of microporosity can result in some misidentification, but in SEM methods misidentifications due to microporosity can be critical. Low resolution during QEMSCAN analysis can significantly affect the textural classification of particle sections. The main conclusion of this study is that, for low iron content ores or tailings, SEM systems can provide much more detailed information on the gangue minerals than OIA. However, for routine characterisation of iron ores with high iron content and containing a variety of iron oxides and oxyhydroxides, OIA is a faster, more cost effective and more reliable method of iron ore characterisation. A combined approach using both techniques will provide the most detailed understanding of iron ore samples being characterised.

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • mineral
  • grain
  • grain size
  • scanning electron microscopy
  • Oxygen
  • iron
  • oxygen content