2846 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
(and particles to drop) through the mesh holes, preventing
the accumulation of air under the funnel where bubbles
could coalesce.
Since the results showed marked differences in froth
stability between the base case and both funnels for super-
ficial velocities of 0.98 and 1.31 cm/s, a Jg of 1.31 was
selected for the following experiments with the two-spe-
cies system, as stronger entrainment effects were expected
to be observed at higher velocities. The air recovery values
obtained for the two-species system are shown in Figure 7.
Contrary to the results observed for a single-species system,
the use of funnels, regardless of the design, was detrimental
to the froth stability of the two-species system. Moreover,
the values of air recovery are markedly different to those
shown in Figure 6. This highlights the importance of the
mineralogy and chemical reagent on froth stability.
Metallurgical Results
Concentrate samples were obtained in triplicate for all exper-
iments, calculating water recovery and total mass recovery.
Concentrate particle size distributions were obtained using
a Mastersizer, as shown in Figure 8. It is observed that most
of the particles obtained in the concentrates correspond to
fine particles. However, Funnel 2 produces a concentrate
with a slightly coarser particle size. The composition of the
concentrates produced was analysed using the pycnometer,
calculating their chalcopyrite and glass beads content based
on the concentrates’ density. The results are shown in terms
of enrichment ratio with respect to the feed in Table 2.
The results show that Funnel 2 produces a coarser
and cleaner concentrate, reporting more chalcopyrite and
fewer fine glass beads. Although the standard deviation is
large, the average results show promising behaviour with
Funnel 2. Interestingly, Funnel 1 has an adverse effect,
Figure 6. Air recovery for the different funnel designs in the single-species system. The
markers represent the variance-weighted average of all the air recoveries measured. The
error bars represent the weighted standard deviation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Base Case Funnel 1 Funnel 2
Figure 7. Air recovery for the different funnel designs in
the two-species system. Error bars represent one standard
deviation
Air
r
overy
(%)
(and particles to drop) through the mesh holes, preventing
the accumulation of air under the funnel where bubbles
could coalesce.
Since the results showed marked differences in froth
stability between the base case and both funnels for super-
ficial velocities of 0.98 and 1.31 cm/s, a Jg of 1.31 was
selected for the following experiments with the two-spe-
cies system, as stronger entrainment effects were expected
to be observed at higher velocities. The air recovery values
obtained for the two-species system are shown in Figure 7.
Contrary to the results observed for a single-species system,
the use of funnels, regardless of the design, was detrimental
to the froth stability of the two-species system. Moreover,
the values of air recovery are markedly different to those
shown in Figure 6. This highlights the importance of the
mineralogy and chemical reagent on froth stability.
Metallurgical Results
Concentrate samples were obtained in triplicate for all exper-
iments, calculating water recovery and total mass recovery.
Concentrate particle size distributions were obtained using
a Mastersizer, as shown in Figure 8. It is observed that most
of the particles obtained in the concentrates correspond to
fine particles. However, Funnel 2 produces a concentrate
with a slightly coarser particle size. The composition of the
concentrates produced was analysed using the pycnometer,
calculating their chalcopyrite and glass beads content based
on the concentrates’ density. The results are shown in terms
of enrichment ratio with respect to the feed in Table 2.
The results show that Funnel 2 produces a coarser
and cleaner concentrate, reporting more chalcopyrite and
fewer fine glass beads. Although the standard deviation is
large, the average results show promising behaviour with
Funnel 2. Interestingly, Funnel 1 has an adverse effect,
Figure 6. Air recovery for the different funnel designs in the single-species system. The
markers represent the variance-weighted average of all the air recoveries measured. The
error bars represent the weighted standard deviation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Base Case Funnel 1 Funnel 2
Figure 7. Air recovery for the different funnel designs in
the two-species system. Error bars represent one standard
deviation
Air
r
overy
(%)