Is malachite magnetic?
Malachite is not magnetic like magnetite: USGS pulled 7 samples at 0.20 to 1.40 amp, moderately paramagnetic. Of 30 copper minerals tabled, 19 were pulled.
No, not in the way magnetite is. Malachite, Cu2(CO3)(OH)2, hardness 3.5 to 4, has no magnetic property on its Handbook sheet, and USGS Open-File Report 99-529 pulled its 7 samples at 0.20 to 1.40 amp on a laboratory separator, best 0.60 to 0.80: paramagnetic, which USGS puts down to copper. Chalcocite, with more copper, was not pulled.
In short
- Paramagnetic, not ferromagnetic. USGS defines ferromagnetic minerals as strongly attracted to a magnet, like a piece of iron, and paramagnetic ones as less magnetic, separable at up to 1.70 amp, the separator’s greatest current. Malachite’s 7 samples came out at 0.20 to 1.40 amp, best 0.60 to 0.80. The report lists malachite among copper minerals that are moderately paramagnetic.
- The copper-row count. We matched every row of USGS Table 1 to the September 2026 IMA list by script and kept those with copper in the formula: 30 rows. 19 have a best range at or below 1.70 amp, among them azurite, brochantite, atacamite, dioptase and malachite. 11 stay behind.
- The oxygen split. Of the 25 copper rows without iron, the 8 with no oxygen in the formula, sulphides, arsenides and sulphosalts such as chalcocite, covellite and enargite, all stay behind. Of the 17 with oxygen, carbonates, sulphates, silicates, phosphates, arsenates and a chloride, 14 are pulled. The exceptions are turquoise, metatorbernite and zeunerite.
- Documented failure: chalcocite. Cu2S is 79.86% copper by mass, against malachite’s 57.48%, and was not pulled at 1.70 amp. USGS names it a diamagnetic exception, probably due to physical and chemical effects. Copper content alone does not decide it.
- Not an identification test. Brochantite and atacamite have exactly malachite’s best range, 0.60 to 0.80 amp, and azurite’s 0.50 to 0.70 overlaps it. Streak, hardness and weight do that work, on malachite and how to tell if malachite is real. Neither source tests a hand magnet.
| Mineral (USGS name) | IMA formula | Iron in formula | Oxygen in formula | USGS total range (amp) | USGS best range (amp) | Samples | Pulled at or below 1.70 amp (best range) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malachite | Cu2(CO3)(OH)2 | No | Yes | 0.20 to 1.40 | 0.60 to 0.80 | 7 | Yes |
| Brochantite | Cu4(SO4)(OH)6 | No | Yes | 0.40 to 0.90 | 0.60 to 0.80 | 3 | Yes |
| Atacamite | Cu2Cl(OH)3 | No | Yes | 0.40 to 1.00 | 0.60 to 0.80 | 4 | Yes |
| Azurite | Cu3(CO3)2(OH)2 | No | Yes | 0.20 to 1.00 | 0.50 to 0.70 | 3 | Yes |
| Antlerite | Cu2+3(SO4)(OH)4 | No | Yes | 0.40 to 0.90 | 0.60 to 0.70 | 1 | Yes |
| Dioptase | CuSiO3(H2O) | No | Yes | 0.40 to 1.10 | 0.70 to 0.80 | 3 | Yes |
| Shattuckite | Cu5(SiO3)4(OH)2 | No | Yes | 0.40 to 1.10 | 0.70 to 0.90 | 1 | Yes |
| Chalcanthite | Cu(SO4)(H2O)4·H2O | No | Yes | 0.60 to 1.20 | 0.80 to 1.00 | 3 | Yes |
| Chrysocolla | (Cu2-xAlx)H2-xSi2O5(OH)4·nH2O | No | Yes | 0.50 to 1.30 | 0.80 to 1.00 | 4 | Yes |
| Conichalcite | CaCu(AsO4)(OH) | No | Yes | 0.60 to 1.70 | 0.80 to 1.00 | 1 | Yes |
| Rosasite | CuZn(CO3)(OH)2 | No | Yes | 0.50 to 1.10 | 0.80 to 1.00 | 1 | Yes |
| Olivenite | Cu2(AsO4)(OH) | No | Yes | 0.60 to 1.10 | 0.80 to 0.90 | 2 | Yes |
| Linarite | PbCu(SO4)(OH)2 | No | Yes | 0.70 to above 1.70 | 1.00 to 1.20 | 2 | Yes |
| Johannite | Cu(UO2)2(SO4)2(OH)2(H2O)4·4H2O | No | Yes | 0.50 to above 1.70 | 1.10 to 1.40 | 2 | Yes |
| Turquoise | CuAl6(PO4)4(OH)8(H2O)4 | No | Yes | 0.50 to above 1.70 | Above 1.70 | 6 | No |
| Metatorbernite | Cu(UO2)2(PO4)2(H2O)4·4H2O | No | Yes | 1.10 to above 1.70 | Above 1.70 | 1 | No |
| Zeunerite | Cu(UO2)2(AsO4)2(H2O)4·8H2O | No | Yes | Above 1.70 | Above 1.70 | 1 | No |
| Chalcocite | Cu2S | No | No | Above 1.70 | Above 1.70 | 3 | No (USGS: diamagnetic) |
| Digenite | Cu1.8S | No | No | 1.00 to above 1.70 | Above 1.70 | 2 | No |
| Covellite | CuS | No | No | 0.80 to above 1.70 | Above 1.70 | 2 | No |
| Enargite | Cu3AsS4 | No | No | Above 1.70 | Above 1.70 | 3 | No |
| Domeykite | Cu3As | No | No | Above 1.70 | Above 1.70 | 1 | No |
| Colusite | Cu13VAs3S16 | No | No | 0.50 to above 1.70 | Above 1.70 | 1 | No |
| Bournonite | CuPbSbS3 | No | No | Above 1.70 | Above 1.70 | 4 | No |
| Pearceite | [Ag9CuS4][(Ag,Cu)6(As,Sb)2S7] | No | No | Above 1.70 | Above 1.70 | 1 | No |
| Bornite | Cu5FeS4 | Yes | No | 0.30 to 1.10 | 0.60 to 0.90 | 4 | Yes |
| Chalcopyrite | CuFeS2 | Yes | No | 0.30 to 1.70 | 0.70 to 1.30, depends on chemistry | 8 | Yes |
| Stannite | Cu2FeSnS4 | Yes | No | 0.30 to 1.00 | 0.50 to 0.70 | 3 | Yes |
| Mawsonite | Cu6Fe2SnS8 | Yes | No | 0.40 to 1.30 | 0.80 to 1.10 | 1 | Yes |
| Renierite | (Cu1+,Zn)11Fe4(Ge4+,As5+)2S16 | Yes | No | 0.05 to 0.60 | 0.10 to 0.30 | 1 | Yes |
| Magnetite, for scale (not counted) | Fe2+Fe3+2O4 | Yes | Yes | Below 0.01 to 0.05 | 0.01 | 6 | Ferromagnetic (named by USGS) |
Is malachite magnetic? What the sheet and the separator record
Malachite is paramagnetic on a laboratory separator and has no magnetic property on its reference sheet. The Handbook of Mineralogy malachite sheet gives Cu2(CO3)(OH)2, monoclinic, hardness 3.5 to 4, measured density 4.05, streak pale green, and says nothing about magnetism. Silence on a sheet is absence from the source, not a measured zero, so the question goes to a measurement.
The measurement. USGS Open-File Report 99-529, Magnetic Susceptibilities of Minerals (Rosenblum and Brownfield) passed dry 125 to 150 µm grains through Frantz isodynamic separators at a 15 degree side tilt. Its definitions: ferromagnetic minerals are strongly attracted to a magnet, like a piece of iron, and include magnetite, maghemite, pyrrhotite and pentlandite; paramagnetic minerals are less magnetic than that and separable at field currents up to 1.70 amp, the greatest value reached on the machine; diamagnetic minerals are nonmagnetic at 1.70 amp. Malachite, 7 samples: total range 0.20 to 1.40 amp, best range 0.60 to 0.80. Magnetite’s best range was 0.01 amp. The report gives no susceptibility in cgs units, so this is a class, not a number.
Why, per USGS. The report says that other than iron, only manganese and copper have been noted to bring minerals into the paramagnetic range, and names malachite among its copper examples. It calls antlerite, brochantite, chalcanthite, malachite and azurite moderately paramagnetic compared to similar minerals with alkali or basic metals, and in its conclusions says a case may be argued for copper being effective in making minerals magnetic, since those minerals are extracted in the early to middle part of the paramagnetic range. Malachite is 57.48% copper by mass, worked on standard atomic weights.
Which copper minerals does a separator pull? The copper-row count
Method. Every data row of USGS Table 1 was parsed by script (376 of 378 rows) and matched by name to the September 2026 IMA-CNMNC Master List (pdftotext -layout, both). Rows whose IMA formula contains copper were kept: 30. USGS names with no IMA row under that name, such as tennantite and tetrahedrite, which the IMA list now splits into suffixed species, were not mapped and are not counted. A raw line scan confirmed the malachite, azurite, brochantite, antlerite, chrysocolla, chalcocite, chalcanthite, bornite, chalcopyrite, covellite, atacamite and dioptase figures.
Result. 19 of the 30 have a best range at or below 1.70 amp; 11 stay behind. All 5 rows with iron in the formula are pulled, bornite and chalcopyrite among them, and USGS says the susceptibilities of such iron-copper sulphides are not additive. The 25 iron-free rows split on oxygen. The oxygen split: all 8 with no oxygen in the formula, chalcocite, digenite, covellite, enargite, domeykite, colusite, bournonite and pearceite, stay behind; 14 of the 17 with oxygen are pulled, from malachite and azurite to dioptase, olivenite and linarite.
What the split is and is not. It describes these 30 rows, read from one table; it is not a law of copper, and USGS itself says it has less confidence in statements about copper series because far fewer copper minerals were available than iron ones. The three oxygen-bearing rows not pulled, turquoise, metatorbernite and zeunerite, carry far less copper than malachite; turquoise is 7.81% copper by mass, worked. The carbonate survey on is siderite magnetic left the copper carbonates out by its method, and the arsenic minerals are counted on is arsenopyrite magnetic; neither count is repeated here.
Is chalcocite magnetic? The documented failure
More copper, no pull. Chalcocite, Cu2S, is 79.86% copper by mass, worked, against malachite’s 57.48%, and USGS Table 1 gives its 3 samples above 1.70 amp in both ranges. The report says so in words: an exception is chalcocite (Cu2S), which is diamagnetic, probably due to physical and chemical effects, similar to pyrite. Covellite, CuS, 66.47% copper, and digenite stay behind too. Worked by script over the 30 rows (variable formulas taken at their copper-rich end), the four most copper-rich are chalcocite 79.86%, digenite 78.11%, domeykite 71.79% and covellite 66.47%, and all four stay behind. So “more copper, more magnetic” fails at the top of the table, and the page makes no claim about why.
A documented negative for identification. Brochantite and atacamite, two of malachite’s green look-alikes, have exactly its best range, 0.60 to 0.80 amp; azurite, 0.50 to 0.70, overlaps it. A laboratory separator would put all four in the same fraction. What does separate them is on the species pages: streak pale green for malachite, apple-green for atacamite; colour blue for azurite; and weight, 15.06 g in water for a 20.00 g malachite at 4.05 against 14.66 to 14.70 g for atacamite. The weighing method is on how to measure specific gravity at home and the streak on a streak plate.
Chrysocolla, on the malachite sheet’s associate list, is pulled too, best 0.80 to 1.00 amp over 4 samples; USGS names it among minerals in which variations in chemistry affect the depth of colour and the extraction range. The species is on chrysocolla, and the confusion between the two on is chrysocolla the same as malachite.
My malachite pulls a magnet: what changes the answer
Something else in the specimen. The malachite sheet’s associates are azurite, cuprite, cerussite, chrysocolla, calcite and “limonite”. “Limonite” has no row of its own in the USGS table; the iron minerals goethite and hematite do, with best ranges of 0.40 to 0.50 amp and 0.10 to 0.30, both pulled ahead of malachite; magnetite, 0.01 amp, is the ferromagnetic case. USGS notes that micro-inclusions of magnetite or other ferromagnetic minerals make a mineral’s lower limit of extraction difficult or impossible to determine, and that sooty copper oxide coatings make upper limits hard to read. A pull on a hand specimen is information about an inclusion, a coating, an iron-stained matrix or tool steel, not about Cu2(CO3)(OH)2.
Neither source tests a hand magnet, so this page predicts nothing about one. The way to localise a pull grain by grain is set out on is tetrahedrite magnetic and is not repeated; the species whose sheets record a magnetic property are on which minerals are magnetic, with magnetite as the strongly magnetic reference. Dyed stone, resin and reconstituted material are a different question, covered on how to tell if malachite is real.
Toxicity is a separate question. Malachite’s copper content and the published guidance are on is malachite toxic and toxic minerals in a collection; nothing here is health, safety or legal advice. The identification guides are indexed at the collecting guides. Nothing on this site is offered for sale; the wanted list is the only commercial route.