454 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
that it was not possible to identify any potential for classify-
ing rocks from one another using the color sensor.
Results of the scanning of rocks from the –4.0/+2.0,
–2.0/+1.0, and –1.0/+0.5 size fractions of the scandium
ore with the DE-XRT, VIS-NIR and SWIR sensors are
presented in Figure 5. The DE-XRT analysis (Figure 5a-c)
revealed moderate potential for sorting, as some differences
were noticeable between the rocks within a given size frac-
tion. However, it was not always clear whether those differ-
ences were caused by changes in relative density between
the rocks or by differences in particle thickness.
The scanning of rocks with VIS-NIR (Figure 5d-f) and
SWIR (Figure 5 g-i) sensors did not reveal much potential
for ore sorting, as neither sensor could unambiguously dis-
tinguish rock-to-rock differences within a set of rocks from
a given size fraction.
As the color, VIS-NIR and SWIR sensors did not dem-
onstrate much potential for sorting, these sensors were not
further used. As only the DE-XRT sensor demonstrated
sorting potential, subsequently dynamic sorting tests were
then accordingly completed using only DE-XRT to assess
the sorting potential more accurately with this sensor in
particular.
DE-XRT Dynamic Sorting Tests on –4.0/+2.0,
–2.0/+1.0, and –1.0/+0.5 Size Fractions of the
Scandium Ore Sample
Table 4 presents the conditions and parameters used for
dynamic tests performed using the DE-XRT sensor on the
–4.0/+2.0, –2.0/+1.0, and –1.0/+0.5 size fractions of the
scandium ore sample. Results from DE-XRT static imaging
of ejected and unejected rocks from these dynamic tests are
shown in Figure 6.
In the results depicted in Figure 6, the differences in
relative density between the ejected and unejected rocks,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mass Pull (%)
Production test -4.0/+1.5
no preconcentration
Li
SPO
QTZ
MUS
ALB
KSP
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mass Pull (%)
Production test -1.5/+0.5
no preconcentration
Li
SPO
QTZ
MUS
ALB
KSP
Figure 4. Cumulative recovery vs. mass pull curves for lithium and selected mineral components of production tests with
–4.0/+1.5 and –1.5/+0.5 size fractions of the lithium ore sample
Table 4. Ore sorter conditions and parameters used for
dynamic tests with the scandium ore sample
Test
ID
Run
No. Feed Type
DE-XRT
RD* %Area†
E5a 1 15 kg –4.0/+2.0 rocks 80−230 65−100
E7 1 15.0 kg of –2.0/+1.0 rocks 130−230 60−100
2 60−230 60−100
E5b 1 10.0 kg of –1.0/+0.5 rocks 70−230 60−100
*RD parameter as defined in Table 1
† %area parameter of the DE-XRT sensor as defined in Table 1
Cumulative
Recovery
(%)
Cumulative
Recovery
(%)
that it was not possible to identify any potential for classify-
ing rocks from one another using the color sensor.
Results of the scanning of rocks from the –4.0/+2.0,
–2.0/+1.0, and –1.0/+0.5 size fractions of the scandium
ore with the DE-XRT, VIS-NIR and SWIR sensors are
presented in Figure 5. The DE-XRT analysis (Figure 5a-c)
revealed moderate potential for sorting, as some differences
were noticeable between the rocks within a given size frac-
tion. However, it was not always clear whether those differ-
ences were caused by changes in relative density between
the rocks or by differences in particle thickness.
The scanning of rocks with VIS-NIR (Figure 5d-f) and
SWIR (Figure 5 g-i) sensors did not reveal much potential
for ore sorting, as neither sensor could unambiguously dis-
tinguish rock-to-rock differences within a set of rocks from
a given size fraction.
As the color, VIS-NIR and SWIR sensors did not dem-
onstrate much potential for sorting, these sensors were not
further used. As only the DE-XRT sensor demonstrated
sorting potential, subsequently dynamic sorting tests were
then accordingly completed using only DE-XRT to assess
the sorting potential more accurately with this sensor in
particular.
DE-XRT Dynamic Sorting Tests on –4.0/+2.0,
–2.0/+1.0, and –1.0/+0.5 Size Fractions of the
Scandium Ore Sample
Table 4 presents the conditions and parameters used for
dynamic tests performed using the DE-XRT sensor on the
–4.0/+2.0, –2.0/+1.0, and –1.0/+0.5 size fractions of the
scandium ore sample. Results from DE-XRT static imaging
of ejected and unejected rocks from these dynamic tests are
shown in Figure 6.
In the results depicted in Figure 6, the differences in
relative density between the ejected and unejected rocks,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mass Pull (%)
Production test -4.0/+1.5
no preconcentration
Li
SPO
QTZ
MUS
ALB
KSP
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mass Pull (%)
Production test -1.5/+0.5
no preconcentration
Li
SPO
QTZ
MUS
ALB
KSP
Figure 4. Cumulative recovery vs. mass pull curves for lithium and selected mineral components of production tests with
–4.0/+1.5 and –1.5/+0.5 size fractions of the lithium ore sample
Table 4. Ore sorter conditions and parameters used for
dynamic tests with the scandium ore sample
Test
ID
Run
No. Feed Type
DE-XRT
RD* %Area†
E5a 1 15 kg –4.0/+2.0 rocks 80−230 65−100
E7 1 15.0 kg of –2.0/+1.0 rocks 130−230 60−100
2 60−230 60−100
E5b 1 10.0 kg of –1.0/+0.5 rocks 70−230 60−100
*RD parameter as defined in Table 1
† %area parameter of the DE-XRT sensor as defined in Table 1
Cumulative
Recovery
(%)
Cumulative
Recovery
(%)