XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 2847
reducing the chalcopyrite enrichment while reporting more
fine silica into the concentrate. These results have also been
plotted as a recovery-grade curve (Figure 9), with the recov-
ery defined as the average mass flow of chalcopyrite in the
concentrate, in grams per second.
The results indicate an improvement in the concentrate
grade when using Funnel 2, accompanied by a small and
statistically insignificant reduction in recovery. Although
the variability observed in the tests is high, Funnel 2
emerges as a promising design for grade enhancement. The
mechanism of this enhancement is explored in Figure 10,
using the water recovery and gangue recovery to calculate
the entrainment factor.
It is observed that Funnel 2 considerably reduces the
entrainment factor of the cell. This implies that, for the
same water recovery, Funnel 2 reports less fine gangue into
the concentrate. Remarkably, both funnels produced a sim-
ilar gangue recovery, considerably lower than the base case,
yet Funnel 1 had an important reduction in water recovery,
producing a drier less stable froth, while Funnel 2 allowed
0
4
8
12
16
20
0.5 5 50 500
Particle size (μm)
Total feed Base Case
Funnel 1 Funnel 2
Figure 8. Average particle size distribution of the feed
and the concentrates obtained for the base case and each
funnel design
Table 2. Mean particle size and enrichment ratios, ER of the concentrates produced with the
retrofit designs
Design P10, µm P50, µm P90, µm ER Chalcopyrite ER fine glass beads
Base case 1.5 7.8 86.6 11.8 ± 2.9 1.4 ± 0.5
Funnel 1 1.5 8.1 98.4 11.0 ± 2.0 1.6 ± 0.4
Funnel 2 1.9 9.9 100.0 13.9 ± 3.4 1.1 ± 0.6
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Chalcopyrite Recovery, g/s
Base Case Funnel 1 Funnel 2
Figure 9. Metallurgical performance with the different
designs. Data points represent the average value obtained
and error bars represent one standard deviation
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Base Case Funnel 1 Funnel 2
Figure 10. Entrainment factor (ENT) obtained for the
different designs. Data points represent the average value
obtained and error bars represent one standard deviation
Volume
densit(%)
Chalcopyrite
in
concentrat
ENT
reducing the chalcopyrite enrichment while reporting more
fine silica into the concentrate. These results have also been
plotted as a recovery-grade curve (Figure 9), with the recov-
ery defined as the average mass flow of chalcopyrite in the
concentrate, in grams per second.
The results indicate an improvement in the concentrate
grade when using Funnel 2, accompanied by a small and
statistically insignificant reduction in recovery. Although
the variability observed in the tests is high, Funnel 2
emerges as a promising design for grade enhancement. The
mechanism of this enhancement is explored in Figure 10,
using the water recovery and gangue recovery to calculate
the entrainment factor.
It is observed that Funnel 2 considerably reduces the
entrainment factor of the cell. This implies that, for the
same water recovery, Funnel 2 reports less fine gangue into
the concentrate. Remarkably, both funnels produced a sim-
ilar gangue recovery, considerably lower than the base case,
yet Funnel 1 had an important reduction in water recovery,
producing a drier less stable froth, while Funnel 2 allowed
0
4
8
12
16
20
0.5 5 50 500
Particle size (μm)
Total feed Base Case
Funnel 1 Funnel 2
Figure 8. Average particle size distribution of the feed
and the concentrates obtained for the base case and each
funnel design
Table 2. Mean particle size and enrichment ratios, ER of the concentrates produced with the
retrofit designs
Design P10, µm P50, µm P90, µm ER Chalcopyrite ER fine glass beads
Base case 1.5 7.8 86.6 11.8 ± 2.9 1.4 ± 0.5
Funnel 1 1.5 8.1 98.4 11.0 ± 2.0 1.6 ± 0.4
Funnel 2 1.9 9.9 100.0 13.9 ± 3.4 1.1 ± 0.6
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Chalcopyrite Recovery, g/s
Base Case Funnel 1 Funnel 2
Figure 9. Metallurgical performance with the different
designs. Data points represent the average value obtained
and error bars represent one standard deviation
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Base Case Funnel 1 Funnel 2
Figure 10. Entrainment factor (ENT) obtained for the
different designs. Data points represent the average value
obtained and error bars represent one standard deviation
Volume
densit(%)
Chalcopyrite
in
concentrat
ENT