2132 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
DTP collector and H2O2. More characterizations such as
SEM-EDS, XPS, Z potential, TOC, and tests, must be
conducted to be able to propose the mechanism. These
experiments are part of the ongoing research of this work.
Table 1 summarizes all the peaks indexed in the spectra.
Microflotation Test
The XRD results show that the composition of this mineral
is 95.4% of pyrite and 4.6% of anhydrite. The adsorption
test and pre-treatments allowed us to get best conditions to
conduct the depression of activated pyrite through flotation.
Regarding the ultrasonic treatment, the findings showed
that the 20 minutes of ultrasonic treatment is a suitable
time for the elimination of PAX from pyrite surface. In the
case of DTP, it looks like the ultrasonic does not have an
influence in the decomposition of DTP, even at high ultra-
sonic time (20 minutes). Nevertheless, FTIR is not enough
to conclude that ultrasonic is not working, complementary
characterization techniques are required to get a complete
analysis of the behavior of the pyrite with this treatment
(this work is in progress). So, it was decided to use the max-
imum time to run flotation experiments. Then, 20 minutes
was the time used to conduct the ultrasonic treatment after
pyrite flotation. Regarding the hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)
treatment, the best condition obtained for both PAX and
DTP was with the higher H2O2 concentration, Then, a
concentration of 0.1 M was used to conduct the H2O2
treatment after pyrite flotation. Then, for the regrinding
treatment, only one condition was assessed, to reduce the
particle size from 80 µm to 30 µm. Here it was presented
the flotation results, the characterization results are in prog-
ress. Figure 7, show the flotation results, the average recov-
eries were 75% and 69% using PAX and DTP, respectively
(see Figure 7, upper part). These results show that the DTP
collector could be successfully used as an alternative col-
lector to float pyrite under the conditions studied. Then,
Table 1. Peak position of FT-IR for pyrite, pyrite treated with ultrasonic (PAX and DTP), and pyrite treated with H
2 O
2 (PAX
and DTP)
Sample Functional group Peak position (cm–1) Reference
PAX CH3
CH2
C=O
C=S
2984, 2874
2937
1750
1070
(Ameta et al., 2018 Botero et al., 2022 Dhar
et al., 2019 García-Leiva et al., 2019 Ghosh
et al., 2012 Tercero et al., 2019)
DTP P-O-C
asym P-O-C
sym P-S
OH
CH
1100–900
830–680
575–510
3424
3800–2800
Pyrite+PAX CH
FeAX
(AX)
2
3000–2800
1125
1025
Pyrite+DTP P-O-Casym
P-O-Csym
1100–900
830–680
Pyrite+ultrasonic α-Fe-O-OH
SO
4
2–
OH
Fe-OH
Fe-O
Fe-OH
797
1129
1638
795
621
892
Pyrite+PAX+20’ultrasonic O=S=O
asym O=S=O
sym C=O
1450–1350
1230–1150
1750–1375
Pyrite+DTP+20’ultrasonic — Unidentified
Pyrite+PAX+0.1H2O2 O=S=Oasym
O=S=Osym
C=O
1450–1350
1230–1150
1750–1375
Pyrite+DTP+0.1H
2 O
2 — Unidentified
DTP collector and H2O2. More characterizations such as
SEM-EDS, XPS, Z potential, TOC, and tests, must be
conducted to be able to propose the mechanism. These
experiments are part of the ongoing research of this work.
Table 1 summarizes all the peaks indexed in the spectra.
Microflotation Test
The XRD results show that the composition of this mineral
is 95.4% of pyrite and 4.6% of anhydrite. The adsorption
test and pre-treatments allowed us to get best conditions to
conduct the depression of activated pyrite through flotation.
Regarding the ultrasonic treatment, the findings showed
that the 20 minutes of ultrasonic treatment is a suitable
time for the elimination of PAX from pyrite surface. In the
case of DTP, it looks like the ultrasonic does not have an
influence in the decomposition of DTP, even at high ultra-
sonic time (20 minutes). Nevertheless, FTIR is not enough
to conclude that ultrasonic is not working, complementary
characterization techniques are required to get a complete
analysis of the behavior of the pyrite with this treatment
(this work is in progress). So, it was decided to use the max-
imum time to run flotation experiments. Then, 20 minutes
was the time used to conduct the ultrasonic treatment after
pyrite flotation. Regarding the hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)
treatment, the best condition obtained for both PAX and
DTP was with the higher H2O2 concentration, Then, a
concentration of 0.1 M was used to conduct the H2O2
treatment after pyrite flotation. Then, for the regrinding
treatment, only one condition was assessed, to reduce the
particle size from 80 µm to 30 µm. Here it was presented
the flotation results, the characterization results are in prog-
ress. Figure 7, show the flotation results, the average recov-
eries were 75% and 69% using PAX and DTP, respectively
(see Figure 7, upper part). These results show that the DTP
collector could be successfully used as an alternative col-
lector to float pyrite under the conditions studied. Then,
Table 1. Peak position of FT-IR for pyrite, pyrite treated with ultrasonic (PAX and DTP), and pyrite treated with H
2 O
2 (PAX
and DTP)
Sample Functional group Peak position (cm–1) Reference
PAX CH3
CH2
C=O
C=S
2984, 2874
2937
1750
1070
(Ameta et al., 2018 Botero et al., 2022 Dhar
et al., 2019 García-Leiva et al., 2019 Ghosh
et al., 2012 Tercero et al., 2019)
DTP P-O-C
asym P-O-C
sym P-S
OH
CH
1100–900
830–680
575–510
3424
3800–2800
Pyrite+PAX CH
FeAX
(AX)
2
3000–2800
1125
1025
Pyrite+DTP P-O-Casym
P-O-Csym
1100–900
830–680
Pyrite+ultrasonic α-Fe-O-OH
SO
4
2–
OH
Fe-OH
Fe-O
Fe-OH
797
1129
1638
795
621
892
Pyrite+PAX+20’ultrasonic O=S=O
asym O=S=O
sym C=O
1450–1350
1230–1150
1750–1375
Pyrite+DTP+20’ultrasonic — Unidentified
Pyrite+PAX+0.1H2O2 O=S=Oasym
O=S=Osym
C=O
1450–1350
1230–1150
1750–1375
Pyrite+DTP+0.1H
2 O
2 — Unidentified