1050 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
The content of sulfates, mostly represented by barite with
minor gypsum content, does not directly follow the same
trends observed for sulfides, being Families 1 and 4 those
of lowest and highest grades, respectively 1.6 and 6.0 wt.%.
Silicates and micas are the most important gangue minerals
in all composite samples. While silicates are the most and
least abundant in Family 1 and 3, respectively 62.0 wt.%
and 35.8 wt.%, the opposite is true for micas, having a 45.4
wt.% grade in Family 3 and 28.5 wt.% grade in Family 1.
As discussed by Blannin et al. (2022), this is possibly linked
to the sedimentation patterns of different particles inside
the TSF according to their size, shape, and density.
While the modal composition of the different size
fractions is rather similar among all composite samples
(Figure 3A), the content of each size fraction (Figure 4),
and consequently the distribution of mineral contents
within these fractions (Figure 3B), differs among the com-
posite samples. In Family 3, the distribution of arsenopyrite
and sphalerite in the fraction below 36 µm is larger (~45%)
than in the other composite samples (~10–20%). On the
contrary, sulfates are almost totally in the fraction above 75
µm in Family 3, while ~20–40% of these minerals are in
the fraction below 75 µm for the other families. Contrary
to other sulfides, a large portion of pyrite is present in the
fraction above 115 µm for all composite samples (~50%).
Micas and silicates are mostly present in the fraction above
75 µm of all composite samples.
Overall Flotation Results
Figure 5 displays the relation between mass recovery and
flotation time (A) as well as the relation between mass and
water pull (B) on the flotation of each composite sample.
The mass pull of Family 1 (~3 wt.%) is five times smaller
than the average mass pull observed for the other compos-
ite samples (~15 wt.%). Similarly, the trend in mass-water
recovery observed for Family 1 indicates a less laden froth,
Figure 4. The content of each size class in the different composite samples. Based on MLA results
Figure 5. Recovery over time (A) and relation between mass and water recovery (B) on the flotation of each composite sample
The content of sulfates, mostly represented by barite with
minor gypsum content, does not directly follow the same
trends observed for sulfides, being Families 1 and 4 those
of lowest and highest grades, respectively 1.6 and 6.0 wt.%.
Silicates and micas are the most important gangue minerals
in all composite samples. While silicates are the most and
least abundant in Family 1 and 3, respectively 62.0 wt.%
and 35.8 wt.%, the opposite is true for micas, having a 45.4
wt.% grade in Family 3 and 28.5 wt.% grade in Family 1.
As discussed by Blannin et al. (2022), this is possibly linked
to the sedimentation patterns of different particles inside
the TSF according to their size, shape, and density.
While the modal composition of the different size
fractions is rather similar among all composite samples
(Figure 3A), the content of each size fraction (Figure 4),
and consequently the distribution of mineral contents
within these fractions (Figure 3B), differs among the com-
posite samples. In Family 3, the distribution of arsenopyrite
and sphalerite in the fraction below 36 µm is larger (~45%)
than in the other composite samples (~10–20%). On the
contrary, sulfates are almost totally in the fraction above 75
µm in Family 3, while ~20–40% of these minerals are in
the fraction below 75 µm for the other families. Contrary
to other sulfides, a large portion of pyrite is present in the
fraction above 115 µm for all composite samples (~50%).
Micas and silicates are mostly present in the fraction above
75 µm of all composite samples.
Overall Flotation Results
Figure 5 displays the relation between mass recovery and
flotation time (A) as well as the relation between mass and
water pull (B) on the flotation of each composite sample.
The mass pull of Family 1 (~3 wt.%) is five times smaller
than the average mass pull observed for the other compos-
ite samples (~15 wt.%). Similarly, the trend in mass-water
recovery observed for Family 1 indicates a less laden froth,
Figure 4. The content of each size class in the different composite samples. Based on MLA results
Figure 5. Recovery over time (A) and relation between mass and water recovery (B) on the flotation of each composite sample