3162 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
stereological bias of aluminium foil particles given their
elongated shape and larger sizes.
Bulk Flotation Results
Figure 2 shows the relation between mass and water pull
for each experiment. While the overall mass pull is slightly
higher at higher solids content (55.7% vs. 53.1%), the mass
pull rate is higher at lower solids content. The difference in
water-to-mass recovery is large between both experiments.
At lower solids content, 2.3 units of mass are recovered per
unit of water. At higher solids content, this relation is 1.5.
Bulk flotation results are displayed for each experi-
ment in Figure 3 as enrichment factor vs. recovery (A) and
selectivity plots (B). The recovery of graphite is expressively
larger (90%) than that of any CAM phase (10%). These
results are reflected in the selectivity evaluation of the pro-
cess. For all phases, the tests at lower solids content are
more selective. The selectivity of graphite towards quartz
and aluminium and copper foils is higher than towards
LCO and NMC particles.
Particle-Based Flotation Results
At first, the quality of predictive models must be assessed
before their results can be used for process evaluation.
Figure 4 compares the observed and predicted relation
between enrichment factor vs. recovery for each phase in
each test. Predictions conform with observed results, attest-
ing the quality of particle-based models in the context of
graphite recycling from black mass.
The recovery of individual particles of distinct phases
in each concentrate is displayed in Figure 5 as a function of
particle size and operating conditions. As observed with the
overall flotation results (Figure 3), the recovery of graphite is
significantly larger than that of all CAM phases. The spread
in recovery of individual particles is larger at higher sol-
ids content, indicating higher uncertainties. For all phases
Figure 2. Relation between mass and water pull per
concentrate collected under different operating conditions
Figure 3. Overall process performance at different operating conditions as represented by enrichment factor vs. recovery (A)
and selectivity (B) plots
(a) (b)
stereological bias of aluminium foil particles given their
elongated shape and larger sizes.
Bulk Flotation Results
Figure 2 shows the relation between mass and water pull
for each experiment. While the overall mass pull is slightly
higher at higher solids content (55.7% vs. 53.1%), the mass
pull rate is higher at lower solids content. The difference in
water-to-mass recovery is large between both experiments.
At lower solids content, 2.3 units of mass are recovered per
unit of water. At higher solids content, this relation is 1.5.
Bulk flotation results are displayed for each experi-
ment in Figure 3 as enrichment factor vs. recovery (A) and
selectivity plots (B). The recovery of graphite is expressively
larger (90%) than that of any CAM phase (10%). These
results are reflected in the selectivity evaluation of the pro-
cess. For all phases, the tests at lower solids content are
more selective. The selectivity of graphite towards quartz
and aluminium and copper foils is higher than towards
LCO and NMC particles.
Particle-Based Flotation Results
At first, the quality of predictive models must be assessed
before their results can be used for process evaluation.
Figure 4 compares the observed and predicted relation
between enrichment factor vs. recovery for each phase in
each test. Predictions conform with observed results, attest-
ing the quality of particle-based models in the context of
graphite recycling from black mass.
The recovery of individual particles of distinct phases
in each concentrate is displayed in Figure 5 as a function of
particle size and operating conditions. As observed with the
overall flotation results (Figure 3), the recovery of graphite is
significantly larger than that of all CAM phases. The spread
in recovery of individual particles is larger at higher sol-
ids content, indicating higher uncertainties. For all phases
Figure 2. Relation between mass and water pull per
concentrate collected under different operating conditions
Figure 3. Overall process performance at different operating conditions as represented by enrichment factor vs. recovery (A)
and selectivity (B) plots
(a) (b)