3320 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
not the only driver of selectivity, and that composition
should be considered. The rosin composition of NCY and
HYR, as well as the relative content of each rosin species
in the TOFA blends, may help to identify what caused the
differences in flotation response.
A comparison of the relative rosin content in the six
collectors is presented in Figure 3. It is shown that FA1 con-
tains proportionally higher 8,15-pimaric, pimaric, isopi-
maric, and secodehydroabietic acids than FA2, while FA2
contains proportionally more abietic acid – although the
difference is minor. Improved flotation performance with
FA2 was most likely attributed to the lower overall rosin
content, as both FA1 and FA2 exhibited superior selectivity
compared to the TOFA-TOR blends. When TORs were
added, the FA1 blends still contained proportionally higher
8,15-pimaric, pimaric, isopimaric, and secodehydroabietic
acid than the FA2 blends. However, the FA2 blends con-
tained proportionally more dehydroabietic acid and abietic
acid with a slight difference in the relative neoabietic and
palustric acid content.
In Figure 3 the FA1 blends with 5% NCY and HYR are
shown to have very similar relative 8,15-pimaric, pimaric,
isopimaric, and secodehydroabietic acid contents as one
another, as do the 5% NCY and HYR blends with FA2.
While the increase in these species likely contributed to the
decreased selectivity of the 5% blends, the similarities sug-
gest they are not the cause of the different flotation perfor-
mance observed with the two TORs. According to Figure 3,
the major differences after TOR additions pertains to the
dehydroabietic, neoabietic, abietic, and palustric acid con-
tent. The 5% blends with HYR in either FA1 or FA2 both
resulted in a proportionally higher dehydroabietic acid con-
tent rosin species, while the blends with NCY result in pro-
portionally higher abietic acid content, and to a less extent,
higher neoabietic and palustric acid content. Relating the
rosin acid content to the flotation performance of the 5%
collector blends suggests the tendency of the blends with
NCY to increase iron recovery could be attributed to their
higher abietic, neoabietic, and palustric acid relative con-
tent – all of which make up the PAN number.
The lowest iron recovery was observed with pure FA1
and FA2, which had the lowest PAN numbers of 0.014
and 0.008, respectively, which also may reveal why there
was only a subtle difference in performance between the
two base TOFAs. The highest iron recovery was observed
with the FA2 blends, both of which are shown to have the
highest relative abietic acid content of all collectors tested.
When HYR was added, it resulted in a higher proportion of
dehydroabietic acid in both base TOFAs. This corresponds
with the difference in flotation performance of the HYR
blends, as they led to comparatively higher lithium recov-
ery but reduced the selectivity against K and Na bearing
gangue minerals.
The same trends are presented in Figure 4 and 5, where
there was a greater change in iron recovery for both FA1
and FA2 in the presence of NCY, but a smaller change in
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FA1 FA2 FA1+5%
NCY
FA2+5%
NCY
FA1+5%
HYR
FA2+5%
HYR
Minor rosin Acids
8,15-Pimaric Acid
Pimaric Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Secodehydroabietic Acids
Dehydroabietic Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Abietic Acid
Palustric Acid
Figure 3. Comparison of relative rosin acid species content in the six collectors tested
Relative
Rosin
Content
(%)
not the only driver of selectivity, and that composition
should be considered. The rosin composition of NCY and
HYR, as well as the relative content of each rosin species
in the TOFA blends, may help to identify what caused the
differences in flotation response.
A comparison of the relative rosin content in the six
collectors is presented in Figure 3. It is shown that FA1 con-
tains proportionally higher 8,15-pimaric, pimaric, isopi-
maric, and secodehydroabietic acids than FA2, while FA2
contains proportionally more abietic acid – although the
difference is minor. Improved flotation performance with
FA2 was most likely attributed to the lower overall rosin
content, as both FA1 and FA2 exhibited superior selectivity
compared to the TOFA-TOR blends. When TORs were
added, the FA1 blends still contained proportionally higher
8,15-pimaric, pimaric, isopimaric, and secodehydroabietic
acid than the FA2 blends. However, the FA2 blends con-
tained proportionally more dehydroabietic acid and abietic
acid with a slight difference in the relative neoabietic and
palustric acid content.
In Figure 3 the FA1 blends with 5% NCY and HYR are
shown to have very similar relative 8,15-pimaric, pimaric,
isopimaric, and secodehydroabietic acid contents as one
another, as do the 5% NCY and HYR blends with FA2.
While the increase in these species likely contributed to the
decreased selectivity of the 5% blends, the similarities sug-
gest they are not the cause of the different flotation perfor-
mance observed with the two TORs. According to Figure 3,
the major differences after TOR additions pertains to the
dehydroabietic, neoabietic, abietic, and palustric acid con-
tent. The 5% blends with HYR in either FA1 or FA2 both
resulted in a proportionally higher dehydroabietic acid con-
tent rosin species, while the blends with NCY result in pro-
portionally higher abietic acid content, and to a less extent,
higher neoabietic and palustric acid content. Relating the
rosin acid content to the flotation performance of the 5%
collector blends suggests the tendency of the blends with
NCY to increase iron recovery could be attributed to their
higher abietic, neoabietic, and palustric acid relative con-
tent – all of which make up the PAN number.
The lowest iron recovery was observed with pure FA1
and FA2, which had the lowest PAN numbers of 0.014
and 0.008, respectively, which also may reveal why there
was only a subtle difference in performance between the
two base TOFAs. The highest iron recovery was observed
with the FA2 blends, both of which are shown to have the
highest relative abietic acid content of all collectors tested.
When HYR was added, it resulted in a higher proportion of
dehydroabietic acid in both base TOFAs. This corresponds
with the difference in flotation performance of the HYR
blends, as they led to comparatively higher lithium recov-
ery but reduced the selectivity against K and Na bearing
gangue minerals.
The same trends are presented in Figure 4 and 5, where
there was a greater change in iron recovery for both FA1
and FA2 in the presence of NCY, but a smaller change in
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FA1 FA2 FA1+5%
NCY
FA2+5%
NCY
FA1+5%
HYR
FA2+5%
HYR
Minor rosin Acids
8,15-Pimaric Acid
Pimaric Acid
Isopimaric Acid
Secodehydroabietic Acids
Dehydroabietic Acid
Neoabietic Acid
Abietic Acid
Palustric Acid
Figure 3. Comparison of relative rosin acid species content in the six collectors tested
Relative
Rosin
Content
(%)