XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings Page 1014 (1038 of 3836)

1060 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
Table 2. Chemical composition of the samples
Chemistry
Unit
Massive Sulfide2% Massive Sulfide. 1–2% Stockwork1%
Element Method Analyzed Calculated Analyzed Calculated Analyzed Calculated
Cu TOT %2.21 2.16 2.21 2.19 1.77 1.73
Fe TOT %39.7 39.86 39 38.83 16.5 16.64
S Eltra %46 43.39 44 42.51 17.3 16.4
SiO2 Uv-Vis %10.6 10.02 11.7 12.23 48.2 47.84
Al2O3 ICP TOT %0.752 0.9 0.863 0.82 8.08 6.94
MgO ICP TOT %0.31 0.3 0.459 0.39 2.21 2.08
P
2 O
5 ICP TOT %0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02
K2O ICP TOT %0.2 0.05 0.2 0.04 0.502 0.51
CaO ICP TOT %0.071 0.04 0.073 0.04 0.382 0.29
Na
2 O ICP TOT %0.1 0.02 0.1 0.02 0.883 0.88
Co ICP TOT %0.062 0.06 0.036 0.03 0.013 0.01
C Eltra %0.05 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03
Cu P1 %0.073 0.02 0.036 0.01 0.005 0.02
Cu P2 %0.044 0.04 0.038 0.03 0.014 0.01
Cu P3 %0.304 0.29 0.245 0.14 0.025 0.06
Cu P4 %1.79 1.93 1.88 1.95 1.62 1.61
Zn ICP TOT %0.072 0.03 0.061 0.02 0.089 0.08
As ICP TOT %0.186 0.39 0.198 0.37 0.02 0.02
Pb ICP TOT %0.451 0.31 0.359 0.25 0.02 0.02
Fe P1 %38.2 38.65 38.6 38.27 0.02 0.02
Fe P2 %0.031 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.157 0.28
Fe P3 %0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.137 0.14
Fe P4 %0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 15.9 15.89
Table 3. Mineralogical compositions of different ore zones
Mineralogy MS2% MS 1–2% Stockwork1%
Element Unit
Copper oxides wt% 0.11 0.07 0.01
Cu secondary wt% 0.31 0.10 0.01
Chalcopyrite wt% 5.70 5.77 4.66
Pyrite wt% 78.42 78.97 27.98
Sphalerite wt% 0.06 0.07 0.13
Quartz wt% 8.82 11.39 35.44
Chlorite wt% 1.81 3.15 12.50
K-silicates wt% 1.25 0.50 0.2
Muscovite (+Kaolinite) wt% 0.2 0.2 6.36
Albite wt% 0.2 0.2 7.25
Others wt% 3.52 0.2 5.67
Total wt% 100.00 100.00 100.00
Table 4. Ball mill and primary grind ball batch properties
Ball Mill Dimensions and Volume Ball Size, mm Amount, g
Radius, cm 10 27 3293
Diameter, cm 20 19 8198
Height, cm 21
Volume, cm3 6,597

Previous Page Next Page

Extracted Text (may have errors)

1060 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
Table 2. Chemical composition of the samples
Chemistry
Unit
Massive Sulfide2% Massive Sulfide. 1–2% Stockwork1%
Element Method Analyzed Calculated Analyzed Calculated Analyzed Calculated
Cu TOT %2.21 2.16 2.21 2.19 1.77 1.73
Fe TOT %39.7 39.86 39 38.83 16.5 16.64
S Eltra %46 43.39 44 42.51 17.3 16.4
SiO2 Uv-Vis %10.6 10.02 11.7 12.23 48.2 47.84
Al2O3 ICP TOT %0.752 0.9 0.863 0.82 8.08 6.94
MgO ICP TOT %0.31 0.3 0.459 0.39 2.21 2.08
P
2 O
5 ICP TOT %0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02
K2O ICP TOT %0.2 0.05 0.2 0.04 0.502 0.51
CaO ICP TOT %0.071 0.04 0.073 0.04 0.382 0.29
Na
2 O ICP TOT %0.1 0.02 0.1 0.02 0.883 0.88
Co ICP TOT %0.062 0.06 0.036 0.03 0.013 0.01
C Eltra %0.05 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.03
Cu P1 %0.073 0.02 0.036 0.01 0.005 0.02
Cu P2 %0.044 0.04 0.038 0.03 0.014 0.01
Cu P3 %0.304 0.29 0.245 0.14 0.025 0.06
Cu P4 %1.79 1.93 1.88 1.95 1.62 1.61
Zn ICP TOT %0.072 0.03 0.061 0.02 0.089 0.08
As ICP TOT %0.186 0.39 0.198 0.37 0.02 0.02
Pb ICP TOT %0.451 0.31 0.359 0.25 0.02 0.02
Fe P1 %38.2 38.65 38.6 38.27 0.02 0.02
Fe P2 %0.031 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.157 0.28
Fe P3 %0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.137 0.14
Fe P4 %0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 15.9 15.89
Table 3. Mineralogical compositions of different ore zones
Mineralogy MS2% MS 1–2% Stockwork1%
Element Unit
Copper oxides wt% 0.11 0.07 0.01
Cu secondary wt% 0.31 0.10 0.01
Chalcopyrite wt% 5.70 5.77 4.66
Pyrite wt% 78.42 78.97 27.98
Sphalerite wt% 0.06 0.07 0.13
Quartz wt% 8.82 11.39 35.44
Chlorite wt% 1.81 3.15 12.50
K-silicates wt% 1.25 0.50 0.2
Muscovite (+Kaolinite) wt% 0.2 0.2 6.36
Albite wt% 0.2 0.2 7.25
Others wt% 3.52 0.2 5.67
Total wt% 100.00 100.00 100.00
Table 4. Ball mill and primary grind ball batch properties
Ball Mill Dimensions and Volume Ball Size, mm Amount, g
Radius, cm 10 27 3293
Diameter, cm 20 19 8198
Height, cm 21
Volume, cm3 6,597

Help

XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 1061
speed rates are adjustable to maintain solid suspension and
gas dispersion.
In the rougher flotation stage, feed sizes of 1.5 kg
batches were used in 4 liters of flotation cells. In the cleaner
stages, 2-liter and 1.4-liter cells were used for the first and
the rest of the cleaner stages. Depending on the mass pull,
the solids concentration for the rougher and first cleaner
stages was 30–31 w/w% and 15–30 w/w%.
The first cleaner flotation was carried out in a 2-liter
cell with an automatic scraping mechanism however, fur-
ther cleaner stages in a 1.4-liter cell were conducted with a
hand-scraping method.
The flotation air flow rates were set to 2l/min for 1.4
liters and 2 liters cells, and 4 l/min was set in 4 liters cells,
respectively. The impeller speed settings were 900 rpm,
1200 rpm, and 1600 rpm for 1.4 liters, 2 liters, and 4 liters
cells with the smaller rotor-stator to maintain pulp condi-
tions (Table 5).
pH was measured continuously by a standard hydrogen
electrode during the flotation tests. The pulp redox poten-
tial was measured by platinum electrode using Ag/AgCl
electrode as reference. Chalcopyrite (CuFeS2) and pyrite
(FeS2) electrodes were used to observe pulp potentials.
All the mass balances were conducted in HSC SIM 10
Mass balance tool ® and balanced according to the “least
square” method. Rougher kinetic and open cleaner test
general flowsheets can be seen in Figure 5 and Figure 6,
respectively.
Abbreviations:
RF- Rougher flotation
RT- Rougher flotation tailing
RC- Rougher flotation concentrate
C1F- First cleaner flotation
C2F- Second cleaner flotation
C3F- Third cleaner flotation
C4F- Fourth cleaner flotation
C1F2- First cleaner second flotation
C2F2- Second cleaner, second flotation
C3F2- Third cleaner second flotation
C4F2- Fourth cleaner second flotation
Analytical Methods Used in Experiments
The flotation experiments products were analyzed at Metso
Outotec Research Center, Pori. After total dissolution,
the chemical analysis of metals in solids was conducted
using Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission
Spectrometry (ICP-OES, iCAP 6000, Thermo Scientific,
Netherlands). The total carbon and sulfur concentrations
were deter-mined by the combustion method (CS-2000,
Eltra, Germany). The gold content was determined using
Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS,
Thermo Scientific, Netherlands). Figure 4. Outotec GTK LabcellTM mechanical flotation
machine
Table 5. Reagents used in the experiments
Reagents Commercial name Formula Function Manufacturer
Lime Calcium Oxide CaO pH modifier Merck Life Science Oy
3418A Aerophine® 3418A Sodium di-
isobutyldithiophosphinate
Collector Solvay Industries B.V.
2216 Florrea 2216 Phosphoridithioate salt
(Sodium dialkyl dithiophosphate)
Collector Shenyang Florrea Chemicals Co LTD
76A Aerofroth® 76A 2-Ethylhexanol tails Frother Solvay Industries B.V.

Previous Page Next Page

XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 1059
Chemical Composition of the Studied Sample
In the massive sulfide 2% Cu sample, the copper grade of
the calculated bulk sample is 2.16%. In the massive sulfide
1–2% Cu sample, the copper grade is 2.19%, and in the
stockwork1% Cu sample, the copper grade in the calcu-
lated bulk sample is 1.7%. The iron grade of samples var-
ies from 16.5% to 39.9%, and the main gangue mineral,
quartz, varies from 10% to 47.8%. massive sulfide2% and
massive sulfide 1–2% chemical compositions are similar.
The chemical composition of the samples can be seen in
Table 2.
Mineral Composition of the Studied Sample
The primary copper carrier in the sample is chalcopyrite.
the copper phase analysis reveals a trace amount of copper
oxides and secondary copper minerals. The MS 2% Cu
sample consists of 5.70wt% of chalcopyrite and 78.4wt%
of pyrite. The main gangue mineral is quartz, constituting
8.8wt% of the sample. The MS 1–2% Cu sample consists
of 5.8wt% of chalcopyrite and 79.0wt% of pyrite. Quartz
constitutes 11.4wt% of the sample. The stockwork1% Cu
sample contains 5.7wt% of chalcopyrite and 28.0wt% of
pyrite. The main silicate is quartz, constituting 35.4wt%
of the sample.
In both massive sulfide samples, the liberation of chal-
copyrite is poor because chalcopyrite tends to appear in
veinlets or minute inclusions in the pyrite. In the stockwork
sample, the liberation of chalcopyrite is better. In the MS
2% Cu sample, chalcopyrite is liberated in 76.1% bulk.
In the MS 1–2% Cu sample, the chalcopyrite liberation
grade is 69.7%. In the stockwork sample, the bulk libera-
tion degree of chalcopyrite equals 90.7%. The liberation
degree of pyrite is above 95% in all the samples. The min-
eral composition of the samples can be seen in Table 3.
METHOD
In the Mawarid experimental scope, grinding, bench scale
flotation experiments, and simulation study were con-
ducted to determine the flotation performances of various
interests also validate the simulation results of the devel-
oped flowsheet by locked cycle test.
Grinding Procedure
Grinding experiments were conducted to maintain desired
particle size distribution for flotation tests. A standard mild
steel laboratory-type ball mill was used for the 1.5 kg blend
sample batch. Based on the client’s previous studies, the
primary grinding target P80 was 60 microns. Ball mill and
primary grind ball batch properties are shown in Table 4.
Blend ore samples weighting of 1.5 kg was ground with
a 65% solids concentration using mill speed of 68 rounds
per minute. Particle size distribution was measured by wet
sieving with ultrasound.
Flotation procedure
The flotation tests were carried out using an Outotec GTK
LabCell ™ flotation machine, shown in Figure 4. The flota-
tion machine has square cells, a rotor-stator mechanism,
and an automatic scraping device. Airflow and impeller
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0001 001 01
Particle size, μm
Stockwork MS 1-2% MS 2%
Figure 3. Particle size distribution of crushed feed
Passing,
%

Previous Page Next Page

Extracted Text (may have errors)

Help

loading