Soilworks products are the industry’s top standard due to our insistence on creating high performance soil stabilization and dust control products that stand up to rigorous testing – both in the lab and in the field. Our commitment to quality and performance has led to our involvement and testing in hundreds of real-world situations. The following library of reports, presentations, specifications, approvals and other similar documents provide you, our customer, the transparency and dependable assurance that is expected from Soilworks.
Underground mining dust suppression requires dependable control under forced ventilation, continuous haul traffic, confined air volumes, variable humidity, and complex water-management conditions. For mine operators, maintenance leaders, safety managers, and environmental teams, Durasoil offers a long-lasting, non-water-dependent dust control solution for underground travelways, ramps, intersections, haul roads, and high-traffic working surfaces where consistent visibility, worker exposure reduction, and operating continuity are critical.
Unlike moisture-dependent suppression programs that require frequent watering, regrading, and reapplication, Durasoil coats and agglomerates fine particles to help maintain stable dust control over longer intervals. Soilworks can help underground mining operations evaluate site-specific conditions and design a dust suppression strategy that supports:
Contact Soilworks for consultation on applying Durasoil in underground mining environments where dependable, water-independent dust control is needed.
Sustainable Solutions
Chloride-based dust suppressants such as magnesium chloride and calcium chloride are widely used because they are accessible, relatively low-cost, and effective under favorable moisture conditions.1 Their dust-control mechanism is hygroscopic: they attract moisture from the air, maintain a damp surface, help retain fines, and can reduce grading frequency when the treated road or working surface is properly prepared.1 At the same time, best-practices guidance warns that excessive use or poor application can create environmental impacts and that chloride releases should be minimized.1
In underground mining, the operating context changes the risk profile of chloride use. Forced ventilation, variable humidity, continuous traffic, confined air volumes, and constrained water management can reduce the reliability of moisture-dependent dust suppression and increase the practical consequences of reapplication, surface slickness, chloride migration, and corrosion exposure.1,2
Available source material supports three broad conclusions. First, chloride performance depends heavily on moisture conditions and often requires repeat treatment.1,3 Second, magnesium chloride is highly corrosive relative to other dust-control agents evaluated in comparative testing.2 Third, because chlorides are soluble and mobile, they can increase runoff-management, storage, and environmental-control burdens when they are not carefully applied and contained.1 Those issues do not make chloride use impossible underground, but they do mean the decision should be treated as a full operational-risk question rather than a simple material-cost decision.
Dust suppression is a critical requirement in underground mining. It affects visibility, worker exposure, equipment condition, regulatory performance, and operating continuity. Chloride-based suppressants are often attractive because they are familiar, available, and comparatively inexpensive upfront.1,2 For underground operations, the key question is not whether chlorides can suppress dust, but whether they can do so without creating disproportionate maintenance, handling, and water-management burdens under actual site conditions.
Environment Canada’s chloride best-practices document was written for unpaved-road applications rather than underground mines, but it remains useful for understanding how calcium chloride and magnesium chloride work, what conditions improve or reduce their effectiveness, and what operational controls are needed to limit releases and unintended impacts.1 The ERDC corrosion study was conducted on military service roads rather than underground mines, but it is highly relevant to the corrosion question because it directly compares chloride-based dust palliatives with less corrosive alternatives under controlled test conditions.2 The Chino tailings paper is not an underground-mine paper, but it provides mining-relevant evidence that magnesium chloride spray is commonly used, condition-dependent, and often reapplied multiple times per year.3
Chloride-based dust suppressants are used because they attract moisture from the air and help maintain a damp surface that minimizes dust emissions.1 Environment Canada identifies calcium chloride and magnesium chloride as the two most commonly used dust suppressants in this class and notes that they also help retain fines on the road surface, reduce washboarding, and lower grading frequency when conditions are suitable.1
The same source makes clear that chloride performance is condition-dependent.1 Application is more effective on a properly prepared surface with adequate fines, drainage, and compaction, and the material works best when applied to a wet road rather than a dry one.1 Chloride-based suppressants may require more than one treatment per year, and maintenance practices such as watering and regrading are used to reactivate or extend performance.1
That mechanism explains both the appeal and the limitation of chloride systems. They suppress dust by retaining moisture and helping hold fines in place; they do not create a permanent or independent dust-control condition once moisture is lost.1
Underground mines impose conditions that can make moisture-dependent suppression harder to sustain. Forced ventilation, continuous traffic, confined spaces, and constrained water management can all increase the operational consequences of dust-control failure.
Environment Canada notes that chloride-based suppressants work most effectively when applied to a wet road and that application to a dry surface is noticeably less effective.1 It also notes that repeat applications are often required and that dry conditions can increase the loss of suppressant and fines.1
For underground mining, the practical implication is straightforward: where site conditions make moisture retention harder to sustain, chloride-based dust control is more likely to become maintenance-intensive rather than inherently durable.1
The Chino tailings study reports that magnesium chloride or other salt solutions are commonly applied as topical spray at a composition of 35% salt and 65% water, at roughly 0.5 gal/yd², and that these salts are effective but have a short effective life compared with other suppressants, requiring reapplication two to three times per year or as needed.3 Although that source addresses a tailings storage facility rather than underground mine travelways, it still supports the broader point that chloride performance in mining applications can be short-lived and may require recurring treatment.3
Environment Canada similarly states that more than one treatment per year is often necessary and that two applications during the year are generally required in road use.1 It also advises that roads be watered during dry periods to reactivate hygroscopic performance.1 Together, these sources support the lifecycle point that chloride economics and operational burden depend heavily on how often the site must reapply, water, regrade, and manage the treated surface.1,3
For underground mines, this means dust-control planning should treat reapplication frequency as a primary operating variable, not a minor maintenance detail.1,3 A chloride program that looks inexpensive by unit price can become materially more burdensome when ventilation and traffic shorten its effective life.1,3
Best-practices guidance for chloride-based dust suppressants includes direct warnings about slippery conditions.1 Environment Canada states that road surfaces can become very slippery after chloride application when it rains under certain conditions, and it notes elsewhere that higher-concentration calcium chloride solutions can make the road surface extremely slippery.1 Those warnings come from unpaved-road practice, but they are directly relevant to any environment where traction and footing matter.1 In underground mining, that issue deserves greater emphasis than it usually gets in surface-road literature. Wet travelways, ramps, intersections, and constrained maneuvering zones create a higher-consequence operating environment. Slick-surface risk should be treated not as a minor side effect, but as a meaningful operational hazard when chlorides are overapplied, poorly timed, or used on unsuitable surfaces.1
Chloride-treated surfaces can become slippery under certain conditions. In underground settings, that risk is more serious because reduced traction on ramps, intersections, and wet travelways can affect both vehicle control and pedestrian safety.
Watch for:
Wet travelways
Overapplication
Fine material buildup
High-traffic areas
In underground settings, where traction loss on ramps, intersections, and wet travelways can affect both pedestrian safety and vehicle control, that risk should be treated as an operational issue, not just a surface-condition nuisance.
The ERDC report states that many dust palliatives used on unpaved roads are formulated with corrosive salts such as magnesium chloride. Although these materials can suppress dust effectively, they can also offset that benefit through increased corrosion of exposed metal on vehicle undercarriages.2 Magnesium chloride was identified in the same study as the most corrosive dust-control agent investigated.2
The ERDC study indicates that magnesium chloride has been associated with serious vehicle corrosion on treated roads and with lasting effects on groundwater and surface water in treated areas.2 It further notes that road users in the Keamuku training area might require frequent washing to limit salt corrosion.2 Although this evidence comes from road applications rather than underground mines, it still shows that repeated magnesium chloride exposure can create significant corrosion burden in mobile-equipment environments.2
The same study reports a corrosion comparison of approximately 9.32 mils per year for magnesium chloride versus approximately 0.5 mils per year for a refined oil system.2 That comparison is useful as a directional indicator, but it should be applied carefully. It supports the conclusion that magnesium chloride was materially more corrosive under the tested conditions.2 It does not support a blanket lifecycle-cost claim for underground mining unless the paper clearly states that the economic result came from a military-road scenario and is being used illustratively, not universally.2
For underground mines, the implication is practical and direct: where fleets, steel infrastructure, maintenance assets, and exposed metal components are repeatedly exposed to chloride residue, corrosion should be treated as a core decision criterion rather than a secondary maintenance issue.2
Because chlorides are highly soluble, dust-control performance cannot be evaluated only at the point of application.1 Environment Canada states that excessive use or poor application can create negative environmental impacts and that best practices are intended to reduce releases to the environment.1 The same guidance emphasizes site grading, runoff control, spill cleanup, drainage management, calibration, and management of chloride-impacted drainage and vehicle wastewater to protect groundwater and surface water.1
This guidance is especially relevant in underground operations, where water is often collected, pumped, reused, treated, and discharged through managed systems. In that setting, chloride use can become a water-handling and environmental-control issue, not just a dust-suppression decision. Environment Canada’s guidance reinforces the need to control chloride-impacted drainage, vehicle wastewater, runoff, and storage losses.1
The ERDC study also notes that magnesium chloride has been shown to have lasting effects on groundwater and surface water in treated areas.2 Although that statement comes from road-use context, it reinforces the broader point that chloride mobility can extend the impact of a dust-control decision beyond the treated surface.1,2
LIFECYCLE COST AND DECISION CONSIDERATIONS
Dust control is often judged by upfront material cost, but chloride economics are shaped by reapplication frequency, watering, grading, corrosion exposure, and environmental management.1,2,3 The Chino source reports repeated magnesium chloride application in mining tailings control.3 Environment Canada likewise reports that multiple applications per year are often needed and that maintenance practices affect both effectiveness and material loss.1 Together, those sources indicate that chloride programs can cost more in practice than their initial purchase price suggests.1,3
For mine operators, the relevant decision is whether a chloride-based program can control dust without creating disproportionate reapplication burden, traction risk, corrosion exposure, and water-management cost under actual site conditions.
When evaluating chloride-based dust suppression underground, operators should assess the following:
Whether the treated surface retains enough moisture for chloride performance to remain consistent under ventilation and traffic.1
How often reapplication, watering, or regrading would be required to maintain dust control.1,3 Which mobile, steel, or exposed metal assets would be repeatedly exposed to chloride residue.2
Whether treated travelways could become slick under wet conditions or unsuitable surface conditions.1
Where chloride-laden runoff, washdown, spills, and storage drainage would be collected and managed.1
Whether application, storage, and calibration controls are strong enough to minimize loss to the environment and maintain consistent treatment quality.1
Chloride-based dust suppressants can reduce dust under the right moisture and surface conditions, which is why they remain widely used.1 But underground mining changes the decision calculus. In underground operations, chloride use can increase reapplication burden, traction risk, corrosion exposure, and water-management complexity.1,2,3
For underground mines, chloride-based dust suppression should be evaluated as an operational risk decision rather than a low-cost commodity treatment. The most defensible basis for selection is site-specific performance under actual operating conditions, weighed against lifecycle maintenance burden, water-management implications, and environmental-control requirements.1,2,3
1 Isah, B. W. (2013). Stabilisation of a subgrade silty clay soil using chloride compounds (Pavement engineering seminar). SRM University.
2 Environment Canada. (2007). Best practices for the use and storage of chloride-based dust suppressants (TPD0702033). Government of Canada.
3 Morefield, S. W., Newman, J. K., Weiss, C. A., Thomas, C. C., & Malone, P. G. (2018). Corrosion inhibitive hygroscopic organic-based dust palliatives (ERDC TR-18-18). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
4 Degner, E., Horn, S., Galligan, Z., Bernard, R., Jameson, J., Mueller, J., Tucker, N., & Griffin, J. (2017). Tailings dust emissions. University of Arkansas.
800.545.5420 USA
001.480.545.5454 Intl
