2978 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
Grade (c, %)=37.4 – 9.38 jf – 2.30 jg – 16.0 jw
+19.5 jb +0.618 jf *jf – 0.300 jg *jg
– 5.9 jw *jw – 2.4 jb *jb +0.061 jf *jg (3)
+5.06 jf *jw – 8.35 jf *jb +0.21 jg *jw
+0.82 jg *jb +21.7 jw *jb
Recovery (R, %)=86.2 – 1.2 jf – 10.26 jg – 21.1 jw
+56.9 jb +0.75 jf *jf – 2.31 jg *jg +22.2 jw *jw
– 25.9 jb *jb +2.88 jf *jg – 5.32 jf *jw (4)
– 4.16 jf *jb +11.12 jg *jw +6.58 jg *jb
– 49.2 jw *jb
According to the flotation results, Cu recovery ranged
between approximately 69–99%. The lowest recovery was
obtained under the following conditions: jf =4.0 cm/s,
jg= 0.5 cm/s, jw =1.0 cm/s, jb =0.5 cm/s. Due to the
low gas flux and high bias, a lower yield (mass recovery)
was obtained. The yield was around 13%, which was lower
than average. Furthermore, Figure 3 represents recovery as
a function of bias and gas fluxes, showing that a decrease
in the bias allows for the increase in recovery. However, the
minimum required gas flux is approximately 1.1 cm/s for
more than 84% recovery. The highest recovery (approxi-
mately 99%) resulted from the condition of jf =4.0 cm/s, jg
=2.5 cm/s, jw =1.25 cm/s, and jb =0.0 cm/s. Approximately
46% of the material was floated, resulting in unusual cop-
per recovery with very low copper content in the concen-
trate (approximately 4.0%).
The contribution of the feed flux was observed to be
positively correlated with the recovery. Figure 3 also shows
that the minimum feed flux should be higher than approxi-
mately 3.5 cm/s for 84% Cu recovery, and a relatively
higher gas flux (1.5 cm/s) must also be applied in this case.
It was possible to achieve higher recovery (84%) at any
Table 3. Experimental design with coded and actual values. The units are cm/s for each factor as introduced in Table 2
Standard
Order Run Order Blocks Feed Flux Gas Flux Wash Water Flux Bias Flux
1 1 1 3, (–1) 0.5, (–1) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
2 2 1 5, (+1) 0.5, (–1) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
13 3 1 4, (0) 0.5, (–1) 0.75, (–1) 0.25, (0)
15 4 1 4, (0) 0.5, (–1) 1.25, (+1) 0.25, (0)
21 5 1 4, (0) 0.5, (–1) 1, (0) 0, (–1)
23 6 1 4, (0) 0.5, (–1) 1, (0) 0.5, (+1)
5 7 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 0.75, (–1) 0, (–1)
6 8 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 1.25, (+1) 0, (–1)
7 9 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 0.75, (–1) 0.5, (+1)
8 10 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 1.25, (+1) 0.5, (+1)
9 11 1 3, (–1) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0, (–1)
10 12 1 5, (+1) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0, (–1)
11 13 1 3, (–1) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0.5, (+1)
12 14 1 5, (+1) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0.5, (+1)
17 15 1 3, (–1) 1.5, (0) 0.75, (–1) 0.25, (0)
18 16 1 5, (+1) 1.5, (0) 0.75, (–1) 0.25, (0)
19 17 1 3, (–1) 1.5, (0) 1.25, (+1) 0.25, (0)
20 18 1 5, (+1) 1.5, (0) 1.25, (+1) 0.25, (0)
25 19 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
26 20 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
27 21 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
3 22 1 3, (–1) 2.5, (+1) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
4 23 1 5, (+1) 2.5, (+1) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
14 24 1 4, (0) 2.5, (+1) 0.75, (–1) 0.25, (0)
16 25 1 4, (0) 2.5, (+1) 1.25, (+1) 0, (–1)
22 26 1 4, (0) 2.5, (+1) 1, (0) 0, (–1)
24 27 1 4, (0) 2.5, (+1) 1, (0) 0.5, (+1)
Grade (c, %)=37.4 – 9.38 jf – 2.30 jg – 16.0 jw
+19.5 jb +0.618 jf *jf – 0.300 jg *jg
– 5.9 jw *jw – 2.4 jb *jb +0.061 jf *jg (3)
+5.06 jf *jw – 8.35 jf *jb +0.21 jg *jw
+0.82 jg *jb +21.7 jw *jb
Recovery (R, %)=86.2 – 1.2 jf – 10.26 jg – 21.1 jw
+56.9 jb +0.75 jf *jf – 2.31 jg *jg +22.2 jw *jw
– 25.9 jb *jb +2.88 jf *jg – 5.32 jf *jw (4)
– 4.16 jf *jb +11.12 jg *jw +6.58 jg *jb
– 49.2 jw *jb
According to the flotation results, Cu recovery ranged
between approximately 69–99%. The lowest recovery was
obtained under the following conditions: jf =4.0 cm/s,
jg= 0.5 cm/s, jw =1.0 cm/s, jb =0.5 cm/s. Due to the
low gas flux and high bias, a lower yield (mass recovery)
was obtained. The yield was around 13%, which was lower
than average. Furthermore, Figure 3 represents recovery as
a function of bias and gas fluxes, showing that a decrease
in the bias allows for the increase in recovery. However, the
minimum required gas flux is approximately 1.1 cm/s for
more than 84% recovery. The highest recovery (approxi-
mately 99%) resulted from the condition of jf =4.0 cm/s, jg
=2.5 cm/s, jw =1.25 cm/s, and jb =0.0 cm/s. Approximately
46% of the material was floated, resulting in unusual cop-
per recovery with very low copper content in the concen-
trate (approximately 4.0%).
The contribution of the feed flux was observed to be
positively correlated with the recovery. Figure 3 also shows
that the minimum feed flux should be higher than approxi-
mately 3.5 cm/s for 84% Cu recovery, and a relatively
higher gas flux (1.5 cm/s) must also be applied in this case.
It was possible to achieve higher recovery (84%) at any
Table 3. Experimental design with coded and actual values. The units are cm/s for each factor as introduced in Table 2
Standard
Order Run Order Blocks Feed Flux Gas Flux Wash Water Flux Bias Flux
1 1 1 3, (–1) 0.5, (–1) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
2 2 1 5, (+1) 0.5, (–1) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
13 3 1 4, (0) 0.5, (–1) 0.75, (–1) 0.25, (0)
15 4 1 4, (0) 0.5, (–1) 1.25, (+1) 0.25, (0)
21 5 1 4, (0) 0.5, (–1) 1, (0) 0, (–1)
23 6 1 4, (0) 0.5, (–1) 1, (0) 0.5, (+1)
5 7 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 0.75, (–1) 0, (–1)
6 8 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 1.25, (+1) 0, (–1)
7 9 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 0.75, (–1) 0.5, (+1)
8 10 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 1.25, (+1) 0.5, (+1)
9 11 1 3, (–1) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0, (–1)
10 12 1 5, (+1) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0, (–1)
11 13 1 3, (–1) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0.5, (+1)
12 14 1 5, (+1) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0.5, (+1)
17 15 1 3, (–1) 1.5, (0) 0.75, (–1) 0.25, (0)
18 16 1 5, (+1) 1.5, (0) 0.75, (–1) 0.25, (0)
19 17 1 3, (–1) 1.5, (0) 1.25, (+1) 0.25, (0)
20 18 1 5, (+1) 1.5, (0) 1.25, (+1) 0.25, (0)
25 19 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
26 20 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
27 21 1 4, (0) 1.5, (0) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
3 22 1 3, (–1) 2.5, (+1) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
4 23 1 5, (+1) 2.5, (+1) 1, (0) 0.25, (0)
14 24 1 4, (0) 2.5, (+1) 0.75, (–1) 0.25, (0)
16 25 1 4, (0) 2.5, (+1) 1.25, (+1) 0, (–1)
22 26 1 4, (0) 2.5, (+1) 1, (0) 0, (–1)
24 27 1 4, (0) 2.5, (+1) 1, (0) 0.5, (+1)