2118 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
efficiency was subsequently calculated based on this cutoff
(Figure 2).
Worst-case scenario is represented by the sample
sieved with its natural moisture content and lacking SAP
addition in the very left. Within the initial 0 to 25-min-
ute interval there is a discernible enhancement in screen
efficiency, beyond which the screen efficiency stabilizes.
Normalization hinges on the dried sample, characterized
by its moisturefree state, establishing a baseline with 100%
screen efficiency (Eu).
Applying the same protocol, SAP dosages of 600g/t
and 300g/t underwent assessment with fewer measure-
ments, considering the uniformity of the SAP used in terms
of granulometry, chemical composition and physical char-
acterization. Consequentially, the anticipated tendency is
expected to align. The kinetics trials for the 600g/t dosage
exhibit a subtle inclination towards reaching a plateau at 25
minutes of incorporation, marked by a discernible inflec-
tion in the curve at this juncture (Figure 3).
In contrast, the trials with a 300g/t dosage do not attain
such stabilization (Figure 4), indicating that the maximum
absorption over time has not yet been achieved.
As anticipated, at a designated time point (t), the
dynamic evolution of water absorption comes to a halt,
coinciding with the superabsorbent polymer (SAP) dos-
age reaching its zenith absorption capacity. This signifies
the culmination of SAP’s discernible impact on moisture
reduction. To harmonize the curves, an adjustment was
executed, aligning the pseudo second-order kinetics model
with the normalized screen efficiency curves.
To elucidate these pivotal parameters, the Excel solver
is deployed to minimize the squared differences between
the calculated and experimental values, employing the
Table 1. Maximum absorption degree with second-order
kinetics (A), with addition of a degree of freedom (B), and
pseudo second-order (C) models
Kinetics Model
A B C
Se [g/g] 185 188 185
Time for 50% Se [s] 17 11 17
Time for 90% Se [s] 63 206 152
r 27,5437 3,9486
b 2,4136
k
2 3,2012 × 10–4
R2 0,90 0,99 0,98
Figure 2. Particle size distribution for each sample through time withing incorporation of 900g/t SAP dosage
efficiency was subsequently calculated based on this cutoff
(Figure 2).
Worst-case scenario is represented by the sample
sieved with its natural moisture content and lacking SAP
addition in the very left. Within the initial 0 to 25-min-
ute interval there is a discernible enhancement in screen
efficiency, beyond which the screen efficiency stabilizes.
Normalization hinges on the dried sample, characterized
by its moisturefree state, establishing a baseline with 100%
screen efficiency (Eu).
Applying the same protocol, SAP dosages of 600g/t
and 300g/t underwent assessment with fewer measure-
ments, considering the uniformity of the SAP used in terms
of granulometry, chemical composition and physical char-
acterization. Consequentially, the anticipated tendency is
expected to align. The kinetics trials for the 600g/t dosage
exhibit a subtle inclination towards reaching a plateau at 25
minutes of incorporation, marked by a discernible inflec-
tion in the curve at this juncture (Figure 3).
In contrast, the trials with a 300g/t dosage do not attain
such stabilization (Figure 4), indicating that the maximum
absorption over time has not yet been achieved.
As anticipated, at a designated time point (t), the
dynamic evolution of water absorption comes to a halt,
coinciding with the superabsorbent polymer (SAP) dos-
age reaching its zenith absorption capacity. This signifies
the culmination of SAP’s discernible impact on moisture
reduction. To harmonize the curves, an adjustment was
executed, aligning the pseudo second-order kinetics model
with the normalized screen efficiency curves.
To elucidate these pivotal parameters, the Excel solver
is deployed to minimize the squared differences between
the calculated and experimental values, employing the
Table 1. Maximum absorption degree with second-order
kinetics (A), with addition of a degree of freedom (B), and
pseudo second-order (C) models
Kinetics Model
A B C
Se [g/g] 185 188 185
Time for 50% Se [s] 17 11 17
Time for 90% Se [s] 63 206 152
r 27,5437 3,9486
b 2,4136
k
2 3,2012 × 10–4
R2 0,90 0,99 0,98
Figure 2. Particle size distribution for each sample through time withing incorporation of 900g/t SAP dosage