XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 453
QTZ spodumene, SPO muscovite, MUS albite, ALB
and K-feldspar, KSP) were included in the metallurgical
balances. Figure 4 displays the cumulative recovery vs. mass
pull curves from the production tests, comparing lithium
and spodumene against the main minerals present in the
ore separately for both size fractions.
Figure 4 reveals that the production test with the
–4.0/+1.5 size fraction achieved greater preconcentration
of lithium and spodumene, as well as more effective pre-
rejection of other minerals, compared to the test with the
–1.5/+0.5 feed material. Specifically, the –4.0/+1.5 produc-
tion test recovered 89.6% of lithium/spodumene in 71.3%
of the mass, while the –1.5/+0.5 test achieved a recovery of
94.4% for lithium and 94.7% for spodumene in 76.8% of
the mass. Additionally, the –4.0/+1.5 test rejected 28.7%
of the mass with tails grades of 0.157 wt% Li and 4.2 wt%
spodumene, whereas the –1.5/+0.5 test rejected 23.2% of
the mass with tails grades of 0.119 wt% Li and 3.0 wt%
spodumene.
The concentrates from the –4.0/+1.5 and –1.5/+0.5
size fraction tests yielded cumulative grades of 0.543 wt%
Li and 14.5 wt% spodumene, and 0.602 wt% Li and 16.2
wt% spodumene, respectively. Comparing these results to
the feed grades of 0.432 wt% Li and 11.6 wt% spodumene
for the –4.0/+1.5 test, and 0.490 wt% Li and 13.1 wt%
spodumene for the –1.5/+0.5 test, the upgrade ratios in the
concentrates were 1.26 for the –4.0/+1.5 test and 1.23 for
the –1.5/+0.5 test.
These results demonstrate that the Sayona Lithium’s
ore sample provided could be amenable to sensor-based ore
sorting using the color sensor. However, for more definitive
evidence, further validation with much larger samples (up
to 5 tons) of run-of-mine ore material is recommended.
Scandium Syenite Ore Sample
Scanning of Rocks from Distinct Size Fractions with the
Various Sensors
Preliminary scanning of selected rocks from distinct size
fractions of the scandium ore sample were first conducted
using the color sensor. When the surfaces of rocks in the
ore material were wetted by spraying with water, the color
of the rocks within each size fraction of the scandium ore
did not vary much from one rock to the next. Accordingly,
attempts at image analysis using the color sensor revealed
Table 3. Metallurgical balances of production tests with distinct size fractions of the lithium ore sample
Sorting
Product
Production Test with –4.0/+1.5 Size Fraction
Mass, kg
Li Si Al Fe Na K QTZ SPO MUS ALB KSP
Grade, %
Conc. 1 9.5 0.760 34.9 8.57 0.245 2.95 2.05 28.7 20.4 5.1 33.5 10.9
Conc. 2 22.5 0.676 35.1 8.42 0.246 3.29 1.68 29.8 18.1 5.4 37.3 8.1
Conc. 3 32.5 0.387 34.9 8.36 0.231 3.97 1.73 28.6 10.4 7.1 45.1 7.3
Tails 26.0 0.157 34.4 8.31 0.413 3.75 2.26 30.8 4.2 12.1 42.6 7.5
Total /Feed 90.5 0.432 34.8 8.38 0.288 3.63 1.90 29.6 11.6 7.9 41.2 7.9
Mass, %Recovery, %
Conc. 1 10.5 18.5 10.5 10.7 8.9 8.5 11.3 10.2 18.5 6.7 8.5 14.4
Conc. 2 24.9 38.9 25.1 25.0 21.2 22.5 22.0 25.1 38.9 16.9 22.5 25.4
Conc. 3 35.9 32.2 36.0 35.8 28.8 39.3 32.6 34.8 32.2 32.2 39.3 32.9
Tails 28.7 10.4 28.4 28.5 41.1 29.7 34.1 29.9 10.4 44.2 29.7 27.3
Sorting
Product
Production Test with –1.5/+0.5 Size Fraction
Mass, kg
Li Si Al Fe Na K QTZ SPO MUS ALB KSP
Grade, %
Conc. 1 8.0 0.664 34.0 9.00 0.273 3.10 2.78 24.0 17.8 5.8 35.2 15.7
Conc. 2 16.5 0.456 34.5 8.42 0.329 3.46 2.15 28.7 12.2 7.8 39.4 9.9
Conc. 3 28.5 0.670 34.7 8.57 0.273 3.11 2.04 28.6 18.0 6.4 35.4 10.0
Tails 16.0 0.119 33.7 8.10 0.930 3.52 2.31 29.2 3.0 7.3 36.1 8.6
Total /Feed 69.0 0.490 34.3 8.47 0.439 3.29 2.22 28.2 13.1 6.9 36.5 10.3
Mass, %Recovery, %
Conc. 1 11.6 15.7 11.5 12.3 7.2 10.9 14.6 9.9 15.7 9.8 11.2 17.6
Conc. 2 23.9 22.2 24.1 23.7 17.9 25.1 23.2 24.3 22.3 27.1 25.8 22.9
Conc. 3 41.3 56.4 41.7 41.8 25.7 39.1 38.1 41.8 56.6 38.6 40.1 40.2
Tails 23.2 5.6 22.7 22.2 49.2 24.9 24.2 24.0 5.3 24.5 22.9 19.3
QTZ =quartz SPO =spodumene MUS =muscovite ALB =albite KSP =K-feldspar.
QTZ spodumene, SPO muscovite, MUS albite, ALB
and K-feldspar, KSP) were included in the metallurgical
balances. Figure 4 displays the cumulative recovery vs. mass
pull curves from the production tests, comparing lithium
and spodumene against the main minerals present in the
ore separately for both size fractions.
Figure 4 reveals that the production test with the
–4.0/+1.5 size fraction achieved greater preconcentration
of lithium and spodumene, as well as more effective pre-
rejection of other minerals, compared to the test with the
–1.5/+0.5 feed material. Specifically, the –4.0/+1.5 produc-
tion test recovered 89.6% of lithium/spodumene in 71.3%
of the mass, while the –1.5/+0.5 test achieved a recovery of
94.4% for lithium and 94.7% for spodumene in 76.8% of
the mass. Additionally, the –4.0/+1.5 test rejected 28.7%
of the mass with tails grades of 0.157 wt% Li and 4.2 wt%
spodumene, whereas the –1.5/+0.5 test rejected 23.2% of
the mass with tails grades of 0.119 wt% Li and 3.0 wt%
spodumene.
The concentrates from the –4.0/+1.5 and –1.5/+0.5
size fraction tests yielded cumulative grades of 0.543 wt%
Li and 14.5 wt% spodumene, and 0.602 wt% Li and 16.2
wt% spodumene, respectively. Comparing these results to
the feed grades of 0.432 wt% Li and 11.6 wt% spodumene
for the –4.0/+1.5 test, and 0.490 wt% Li and 13.1 wt%
spodumene for the –1.5/+0.5 test, the upgrade ratios in the
concentrates were 1.26 for the –4.0/+1.5 test and 1.23 for
the –1.5/+0.5 test.
These results demonstrate that the Sayona Lithium’s
ore sample provided could be amenable to sensor-based ore
sorting using the color sensor. However, for more definitive
evidence, further validation with much larger samples (up
to 5 tons) of run-of-mine ore material is recommended.
Scandium Syenite Ore Sample
Scanning of Rocks from Distinct Size Fractions with the
Various Sensors
Preliminary scanning of selected rocks from distinct size
fractions of the scandium ore sample were first conducted
using the color sensor. When the surfaces of rocks in the
ore material were wetted by spraying with water, the color
of the rocks within each size fraction of the scandium ore
did not vary much from one rock to the next. Accordingly,
attempts at image analysis using the color sensor revealed
Table 3. Metallurgical balances of production tests with distinct size fractions of the lithium ore sample
Sorting
Product
Production Test with –4.0/+1.5 Size Fraction
Mass, kg
Li Si Al Fe Na K QTZ SPO MUS ALB KSP
Grade, %
Conc. 1 9.5 0.760 34.9 8.57 0.245 2.95 2.05 28.7 20.4 5.1 33.5 10.9
Conc. 2 22.5 0.676 35.1 8.42 0.246 3.29 1.68 29.8 18.1 5.4 37.3 8.1
Conc. 3 32.5 0.387 34.9 8.36 0.231 3.97 1.73 28.6 10.4 7.1 45.1 7.3
Tails 26.0 0.157 34.4 8.31 0.413 3.75 2.26 30.8 4.2 12.1 42.6 7.5
Total /Feed 90.5 0.432 34.8 8.38 0.288 3.63 1.90 29.6 11.6 7.9 41.2 7.9
Mass, %Recovery, %
Conc. 1 10.5 18.5 10.5 10.7 8.9 8.5 11.3 10.2 18.5 6.7 8.5 14.4
Conc. 2 24.9 38.9 25.1 25.0 21.2 22.5 22.0 25.1 38.9 16.9 22.5 25.4
Conc. 3 35.9 32.2 36.0 35.8 28.8 39.3 32.6 34.8 32.2 32.2 39.3 32.9
Tails 28.7 10.4 28.4 28.5 41.1 29.7 34.1 29.9 10.4 44.2 29.7 27.3
Sorting
Product
Production Test with –1.5/+0.5 Size Fraction
Mass, kg
Li Si Al Fe Na K QTZ SPO MUS ALB KSP
Grade, %
Conc. 1 8.0 0.664 34.0 9.00 0.273 3.10 2.78 24.0 17.8 5.8 35.2 15.7
Conc. 2 16.5 0.456 34.5 8.42 0.329 3.46 2.15 28.7 12.2 7.8 39.4 9.9
Conc. 3 28.5 0.670 34.7 8.57 0.273 3.11 2.04 28.6 18.0 6.4 35.4 10.0
Tails 16.0 0.119 33.7 8.10 0.930 3.52 2.31 29.2 3.0 7.3 36.1 8.6
Total /Feed 69.0 0.490 34.3 8.47 0.439 3.29 2.22 28.2 13.1 6.9 36.5 10.3
Mass, %Recovery, %
Conc. 1 11.6 15.7 11.5 12.3 7.2 10.9 14.6 9.9 15.7 9.8 11.2 17.6
Conc. 2 23.9 22.2 24.1 23.7 17.9 25.1 23.2 24.3 22.3 27.1 25.8 22.9
Conc. 3 41.3 56.4 41.7 41.8 25.7 39.1 38.1 41.8 56.6 38.6 40.1 40.2
Tails 23.2 5.6 22.7 22.2 49.2 24.9 24.2 24.0 5.3 24.5 22.9 19.3
QTZ =quartz SPO =spodumene MUS =muscovite ALB =albite KSP =K-feldspar.