XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 1051
i.e., a lower mass pull for a unit of water pull, than what is
observed for the other composite samples. Flotation tests
with Family 3 yielded both the highest mass pull and the
most loaded froth.
Figure 6 presents the grade and recovery plots of a few
selected minerals. The flotation behavior of all minerals
differs between Family 1 and all other composite samples.
While an unselective recovery behavior (i.e., simultane-
ous growth of grade and recovery) is observed for micas,
silicates, and partially sulfates in Family 1, the opposite
can be seen with the other composite families. The exact
opposite trend can be observed for pyrite and arsenopy-
rite. Sphalerite is the only mineral in which the grade and
recovery trends indicate a selective concentration for all
composite families. These observations are supported by
the selectivity analysis between silicates and arsenopyrite,
pyrite, and sphalerite (Figure 7). For all these target miner-
als, the flotation test of Family 1 yields the most selective
separation process, followed by Family 4, the global com-
posite, Family 2, and Family 3. This ordering of composite
samples correlates well with the content of sulfides present
in the fine and coarser size fractions (Figure 3B)—i.e., the
selectivity is higher when sulfide minerals are mostly pres-
ent in the coarser size fractions. The recovery of sphalerite
is the most selective among all target minerals (Figure 7).
Particle-Based Separation Models
Figure 8 compares the composition and mass of the flo-
tation concentrate observed for each composite family to
those predicted by using the PSM trained solely with the
global composite sample. PSM predictions for the different
minerals are very close to experimental values for both prod-
ucts of all composite samples but the concentrate of Family
1. More specifically, pyrite grades predicted (~6 wt.%) in
the concentrate of Family 1 one are five times smaller than
those observed (~30 wt.%). On the other hand, the models
Figure 6. Grade and recovery curves of a few selected minerals after the flotation of the different composite samples. Based on
MLA results
i.e., a lower mass pull for a unit of water pull, than what is
observed for the other composite samples. Flotation tests
with Family 3 yielded both the highest mass pull and the
most loaded froth.
Figure 6 presents the grade and recovery plots of a few
selected minerals. The flotation behavior of all minerals
differs between Family 1 and all other composite samples.
While an unselective recovery behavior (i.e., simultane-
ous growth of grade and recovery) is observed for micas,
silicates, and partially sulfates in Family 1, the opposite
can be seen with the other composite families. The exact
opposite trend can be observed for pyrite and arsenopy-
rite. Sphalerite is the only mineral in which the grade and
recovery trends indicate a selective concentration for all
composite families. These observations are supported by
the selectivity analysis between silicates and arsenopyrite,
pyrite, and sphalerite (Figure 7). For all these target miner-
als, the flotation test of Family 1 yields the most selective
separation process, followed by Family 4, the global com-
posite, Family 2, and Family 3. This ordering of composite
samples correlates well with the content of sulfides present
in the fine and coarser size fractions (Figure 3B)—i.e., the
selectivity is higher when sulfide minerals are mostly pres-
ent in the coarser size fractions. The recovery of sphalerite
is the most selective among all target minerals (Figure 7).
Particle-Based Separation Models
Figure 8 compares the composition and mass of the flo-
tation concentrate observed for each composite family to
those predicted by using the PSM trained solely with the
global composite sample. PSM predictions for the different
minerals are very close to experimental values for both prod-
ucts of all composite samples but the concentrate of Family
1. More specifically, pyrite grades predicted (~6 wt.%) in
the concentrate of Family 1 one are five times smaller than
those observed (~30 wt.%). On the other hand, the models
Figure 6. Grade and recovery curves of a few selected minerals after the flotation of the different composite samples. Based on
MLA results