460 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
these sensors were unable to identify significant differences
between individual rocks within any size fraction. This lack
of clear distinction meant that color, VIS-NIR, and SWIR
sensors showed limited potential for effective ore sorting.
Consequently, the focus shifted to further exploring
the capabilities of the DE-XRT sensor. The subsequent
dynamic tests were thus conducted exclusively with the
DE-XRT sensor to assess more accurately its potential for
sorting.
DE-XRT Dynamic Tests on –4.0/+3.0, –3.0/+1.5 and
–1.5/+0.5 Size Fractions of the REE Ore Sample
Table 7 presents the ore sorter conditions and parameters
used for the dynamic tests with DE-XRT on selected rocks
from the –4.0/+3.0, –3.0/+1.5, and –1.5/+0.5 size fractions
of the REE ore sample. Results from these dynamic tests are
illustrated in Figure 10.
An analysis of the results presented in Figure 10, which
compared DE-XRT static images of ejected and unejected
rocks obtained in the DE-XRT dynamic sorting tests
with the three size fractions, revealed a distinct pattern.
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 -2.0/+1.0
no preconcentration
Si
Al
Fe
Mg
Ca
Na
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 -2.0/+1.0
no preconcentration
Sc
Fe-MIN
FSP
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 -1.0/+0.5
no preconcentration
Si
Al
Fe
Mg
Ca
Na
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 -1.0/+0.5
no preconcentration
Sc
Fe-MIN
FSP
Figure 8. Cumulative recovery vs. mass pull curves for selected elements and mineral components of production tests with
–2.0/+1.0 and –1.0/+0.5 size fractions of the scandium ore
Cumulative
Recovery
(%)
Cumulative
Recovery
(%)
Cumulative
Recovery
(%)
Cumulative
Recovery
(%)
these sensors were unable to identify significant differences
between individual rocks within any size fraction. This lack
of clear distinction meant that color, VIS-NIR, and SWIR
sensors showed limited potential for effective ore sorting.
Consequently, the focus shifted to further exploring
the capabilities of the DE-XRT sensor. The subsequent
dynamic tests were thus conducted exclusively with the
DE-XRT sensor to assess more accurately its potential for
sorting.
DE-XRT Dynamic Tests on –4.0/+3.0, –3.0/+1.5 and
–1.5/+0.5 Size Fractions of the REE Ore Sample
Table 7 presents the ore sorter conditions and parameters
used for the dynamic tests with DE-XRT on selected rocks
from the –4.0/+3.0, –3.0/+1.5, and –1.5/+0.5 size fractions
of the REE ore sample. Results from these dynamic tests are
illustrated in Figure 10.
An analysis of the results presented in Figure 10, which
compared DE-XRT static images of ejected and unejected
rocks obtained in the DE-XRT dynamic sorting tests
with the three size fractions, revealed a distinct pattern.
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 -2.0/+1.0
no preconcentration
Si
Al
Fe
Mg
Ca
Na
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 -2.0/+1.0
no preconcentration
Sc
Fe-MIN
FSP
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 -1.0/+0.5
no preconcentration
Si
Al
Fe
Mg
Ca
Na
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 -1.0/+0.5
no preconcentration
Sc
Fe-MIN
FSP
Figure 8. Cumulative recovery vs. mass pull curves for selected elements and mineral components of production tests with
–2.0/+1.0 and –1.0/+0.5 size fractions of the scandium ore
Cumulative
Recovery
(%)
Cumulative
Recovery
(%)
Cumulative
Recovery
(%)
Cumulative
Recovery
(%)