502 XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3
Fe enrichment was necessary. 1. The process conditions and
results of the different scavenging and cleaning operations
are summarized in Table 6.
Scavenger 2 demonstrated exceptional separation,
with a Delta Fe of 13.44 points, which far exceeds the best
first pass separation performance. A possible explanation
for this outlier is that the feed Fe for the Scavenger 2 pro-
cessing was the lowest of any processed in this experiment.
The enrichments in Fe provided by the cleaning stages fall
short of the first pass results, which implies the existence
of an upper limit for Fe enrichment. In other words, the
potential enrichment is dependent on the feed Fe concen-
tration, which corresponds to the mineralogy, as well as the
machine variables. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume
that there is an ideal concentration range for the iron bear-
ing mineral, in this case hematite, for separation. Figure 6
shows how feed Fe concentration relates to Fe enrichment.
There is insufficient evidence to determine what the root
Table 6. Results of second-pass processing schemes
Run Class
Conditions Results
Belt
Speed Gap Voltage
Feed
Port Polarity
Belt
Material
Delta Fe
(%)
Yield
(%)
Feed Fe
(%)
Scavenger 1 52 330 10.0 1 Positive 2 5.42 ± 0.37 59.2 ± 1.1 41.4
Scavenger 2 65 330 10.0 3 Negative 2 13.44 ± 0.18 32.9 ± 0.8 37.8
Scavenger 3 52 330 10.0 1 Positive 2 9.49 ± 1.11 57.3 ± 0.2 42.7
Cleaning 1 65 330 10.0 3 Negative 2 3.94 ± 0.42 35.9 ± 0.9 53.4
Cleaning 2 65 330 10.0 3 Negative 2 3.77 ± 0.20 38.4 ± 1.4 52.8
Cleaning 3 65 330 10.0 3 Positive 2 3.60 ± 0.58 32.7 ± 0.1 57.0
Figure 6. Example of the effect of a change in a factor on the ‘Prediction Profiler’
Fe enrichment was necessary. 1. The process conditions and
results of the different scavenging and cleaning operations
are summarized in Table 6.
Scavenger 2 demonstrated exceptional separation,
with a Delta Fe of 13.44 points, which far exceeds the best
first pass separation performance. A possible explanation
for this outlier is that the feed Fe for the Scavenger 2 pro-
cessing was the lowest of any processed in this experiment.
The enrichments in Fe provided by the cleaning stages fall
short of the first pass results, which implies the existence
of an upper limit for Fe enrichment. In other words, the
potential enrichment is dependent on the feed Fe concen-
tration, which corresponds to the mineralogy, as well as the
machine variables. Therefore, it is reasonable to presume
that there is an ideal concentration range for the iron bear-
ing mineral, in this case hematite, for separation. Figure 6
shows how feed Fe concentration relates to Fe enrichment.
There is insufficient evidence to determine what the root
Table 6. Results of second-pass processing schemes
Run Class
Conditions Results
Belt
Speed Gap Voltage
Feed
Port Polarity
Belt
Material
Delta Fe
(%)
Yield
(%)
Feed Fe
(%)
Scavenger 1 52 330 10.0 1 Positive 2 5.42 ± 0.37 59.2 ± 1.1 41.4
Scavenger 2 65 330 10.0 3 Negative 2 13.44 ± 0.18 32.9 ± 0.8 37.8
Scavenger 3 52 330 10.0 1 Positive 2 9.49 ± 1.11 57.3 ± 0.2 42.7
Cleaning 1 65 330 10.0 3 Negative 2 3.94 ± 0.42 35.9 ± 0.9 53.4
Cleaning 2 65 330 10.0 3 Negative 2 3.77 ± 0.20 38.4 ± 1.4 52.8
Cleaning 3 65 330 10.0 3 Positive 2 3.60 ± 0.58 32.7 ± 0.1 57.0
Figure 6. Example of the effect of a change in a factor on the ‘Prediction Profiler’