XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 3321
lithium recovery. Meanwhile, the presence of HYR led to
a greater change in K and Na recovery, accompanied by
a slightly higher change in lithium recovery than NCY
(Figure 4b and 5b). For the FA1 and FA2 blends with HYR
there was a larger increase in the K2O and Na2O assay and
recovery – as well as a smaller increase in iron recovery and
slightly higher increase in lithium recovery – compared to
NCY additions. This supports the conclusion that adding
HYR had a greater negative impact on the general selectiv-
ity of FA1 and FA2, while the results with NCY additions
indicated there was some preferential increase in iron recov-
ery (Figure 4a and 5a).
The ratios of each major species to the total rosin con-
tent were plotted against lithium, iron, potassium, and
sodium recoveries to better identify if any relationships
between selectivity and rosin composition. The strongest
trends are shown in Figure 6. The ratio of dehydroabietic
acid to total rosin content shown in Figure 6a revealed a
strong positive correlation with recovery of sodium and
potassium, showing a higher ratio of dehydroabietic acid
resulted in a greater increase in silicate gangue recovery.
Figure 6b presents the relationship between the ratio of
PAN to total rosin content and highlights how iron recovery
was preferentially increased over lithium when the relative
-2.9 -2.8
5.4 4.5
-2.4 -2.9
7.5 7.6
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
NCY HYR
0.9 2.5
9.2
11.7
1.3 1.4
11.1
13.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Li Fe K Na
4b. 4a.
Li2O Fe2O3 K2O Na2O
Figure 4. Percent change in rougher concentrate grade (a) and recovery (b) with FA1-TOR blends compared to pure FA1
-6.9
-3.2
8.2
13.5
-13.4 -12.3
20.5
32.4
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
NCY HYR
5a.
Li2O Fe2O3 K2O Na2O
1.9
8.9
17.9
23.7
2.4
6.8
37.9
52.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Li Fe K Na
5b.
Figure 5. Percent change in rougher concentrate grade (a) and recovery (b) with FA2-TOR blends compared to pure FA2
%
Change
in
Concentrate
Grade
%
Change
in
Metal
Recovery
%
Change
in
Concentrate
Grade
%
Change
in
Metal
Recovery
lithium recovery. Meanwhile, the presence of HYR led to
a greater change in K and Na recovery, accompanied by
a slightly higher change in lithium recovery than NCY
(Figure 4b and 5b). For the FA1 and FA2 blends with HYR
there was a larger increase in the K2O and Na2O assay and
recovery – as well as a smaller increase in iron recovery and
slightly higher increase in lithium recovery – compared to
NCY additions. This supports the conclusion that adding
HYR had a greater negative impact on the general selectiv-
ity of FA1 and FA2, while the results with NCY additions
indicated there was some preferential increase in iron recov-
ery (Figure 4a and 5a).
The ratios of each major species to the total rosin con-
tent were plotted against lithium, iron, potassium, and
sodium recoveries to better identify if any relationships
between selectivity and rosin composition. The strongest
trends are shown in Figure 6. The ratio of dehydroabietic
acid to total rosin content shown in Figure 6a revealed a
strong positive correlation with recovery of sodium and
potassium, showing a higher ratio of dehydroabietic acid
resulted in a greater increase in silicate gangue recovery.
Figure 6b presents the relationship between the ratio of
PAN to total rosin content and highlights how iron recovery
was preferentially increased over lithium when the relative
-2.9 -2.8
5.4 4.5
-2.4 -2.9
7.5 7.6
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
NCY HYR
0.9 2.5
9.2
11.7
1.3 1.4
11.1
13.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Li Fe K Na
4b. 4a.
Li2O Fe2O3 K2O Na2O
Figure 4. Percent change in rougher concentrate grade (a) and recovery (b) with FA1-TOR blends compared to pure FA1
-6.9
-3.2
8.2
13.5
-13.4 -12.3
20.5
32.4
-20.0
-10.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
NCY HYR
5a.
Li2O Fe2O3 K2O Na2O
1.9
8.9
17.9
23.7
2.4
6.8
37.9
52.5
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Li Fe K Na
5b.
Figure 5. Percent change in rougher concentrate grade (a) and recovery (b) with FA2-TOR blends compared to pure FA2
%
Change
in
Concentrate
Grade
%
Change
in
Metal
Recovery
%
Change
in
Concentrate
Grade
%
Change
in
Metal
Recovery