XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 2819
total) to establish which significantly impacted the Jameson
cell’s performance in scavenging. The dominant factors will
be evaluated in a future campaign to elucidate the mecha-
nisms involved that drive Jameson cell performance.
Screening tests usually aim to determine the main fac-
tors affecting the response observed. As such, the main
effects are often aliased with 2-factor and higher-order
interactions during the experimental design to reduce the
number of tests required. Therefore, a resolution IV ¼
fractional 2-level factorial experimental design was used to
obtain an estimate of the effects from the observations of
the factors. The disadvantage is that most of the interactive
effects between the factors are aliased and, therefore, cannot
be readily determined (Napier-Munn, 2014).
A randomized block design was used with the inter-
fering factor blocked being time, a proxy for uncontrolled
factors such as feed characteristics. Three center points were
included in each block to determine if curvature, i.e., non-
linearity, was present (Napier-Munn 2014).
The experimental design was generated with Minitab
software and required 22 test runs, as shown in Table 3.
After the desired conditions were selected between each
Table 1. Summary of measurements for each test run
Description Measurements
Flotation
performance
Elemental grade and recovery (Cu, Si), mass
flow and %solids
Hydrodynamics Superficial gas rate (calculated)
Equipment data Downcomer pressure, vacuum pressure,
wash water flow rate, air flow rate, air-to-
pulp ratio, tails %recycle
Froth
performance
Froth depth, froth height above cell lip,
froth velocity,
water recovery
Table 2. Screening test factors and their levels for the
experimental design
Factor Units Min Level Max Level
Feed Flow Rate m3/h 4 6
Feed Solids Concentration %20 30
Vacuum Pressure kPa –15 –5
Wash Water Flow Rate L/h 0 400
Froth Depth mm 50 100
Frother Dosage ppm 30 70
Table 3. Design of experiment based on a resolution IV ¼ fractional 2-level factorial design
Std Order Run Order Block Feed Flow
Feed
%Solids
Vacuum
Pressure Wash Water Froth Depth
Frother
Dosage
m3/h %kPa L/h mm ppm
9 1 1 5 25 –10 200 75 50
8 2 1 4 30 –5 400 100 70
5 3 1 6 20 –15 400 50 70
7 4 1 4 20 –5 400 50 30
2 5 1 4 30 –15 0 50 70
10 6 1 5 25 –10 200 75 50
11 7 1 5 25 –10 200 75 50
1 8 1 4 20 –15 0 100 30
3 9 1 6 20 –5 0 100 70
6 10 1 6 30 –15 400 100 30
4 11 1 6 30 –5 0 50 30
17 12 2 4 30 –15 400 50 30
20 13 2 5 25 –10 200 75 50
22 14 2 5 25 –10 200 75 50
19 15 2 6 30 –5 400 50 70
15 16 2 4 30 –5 0 100 30
14 17 2 4 20 –5 0 50 70
18 18 2 6 20 –5 400 100 30
16 19 2 4 20 –15 400 100 70
12 20 2 6 20 –15 0 50 30
21 21 2 5 25 –10 200 75 50
13 22 2 6 30 –15 0 100 70
total) to establish which significantly impacted the Jameson
cell’s performance in scavenging. The dominant factors will
be evaluated in a future campaign to elucidate the mecha-
nisms involved that drive Jameson cell performance.
Screening tests usually aim to determine the main fac-
tors affecting the response observed. As such, the main
effects are often aliased with 2-factor and higher-order
interactions during the experimental design to reduce the
number of tests required. Therefore, a resolution IV ¼
fractional 2-level factorial experimental design was used to
obtain an estimate of the effects from the observations of
the factors. The disadvantage is that most of the interactive
effects between the factors are aliased and, therefore, cannot
be readily determined (Napier-Munn, 2014).
A randomized block design was used with the inter-
fering factor blocked being time, a proxy for uncontrolled
factors such as feed characteristics. Three center points were
included in each block to determine if curvature, i.e., non-
linearity, was present (Napier-Munn 2014).
The experimental design was generated with Minitab
software and required 22 test runs, as shown in Table 3.
After the desired conditions were selected between each
Table 1. Summary of measurements for each test run
Description Measurements
Flotation
performance
Elemental grade and recovery (Cu, Si), mass
flow and %solids
Hydrodynamics Superficial gas rate (calculated)
Equipment data Downcomer pressure, vacuum pressure,
wash water flow rate, air flow rate, air-to-
pulp ratio, tails %recycle
Froth
performance
Froth depth, froth height above cell lip,
froth velocity,
water recovery
Table 2. Screening test factors and their levels for the
experimental design
Factor Units Min Level Max Level
Feed Flow Rate m3/h 4 6
Feed Solids Concentration %20 30
Vacuum Pressure kPa –15 –5
Wash Water Flow Rate L/h 0 400
Froth Depth mm 50 100
Frother Dosage ppm 30 70
Table 3. Design of experiment based on a resolution IV ¼ fractional 2-level factorial design
Std Order Run Order Block Feed Flow
Feed
%Solids
Vacuum
Pressure Wash Water Froth Depth
Frother
Dosage
m3/h %kPa L/h mm ppm
9 1 1 5 25 –10 200 75 50
8 2 1 4 30 –5 400 100 70
5 3 1 6 20 –15 400 50 70
7 4 1 4 20 –5 400 50 30
2 5 1 4 30 –15 0 50 70
10 6 1 5 25 –10 200 75 50
11 7 1 5 25 –10 200 75 50
1 8 1 4 20 –15 0 100 30
3 9 1 6 20 –5 0 100 70
6 10 1 6 30 –15 400 100 30
4 11 1 6 30 –5 0 50 30
17 12 2 4 30 –15 400 50 30
20 13 2 5 25 –10 200 75 50
22 14 2 5 25 –10 200 75 50
19 15 2 6 30 –5 400 50 70
15 16 2 4 30 –5 0 100 30
14 17 2 4 20 –5 0 50 70
18 18 2 6 20 –5 400 100 30
16 19 2 4 20 –15 400 100 70
12 20 2 6 20 –15 0 50 30
21 21 2 5 25 –10 200 75 50
13 22 2 6 30 –15 0 100 70