XXXI International Mineral Processing Congress 2024 Proceedings/Washington, DC/Sep 29–Oct 3 573
techniques are spirals and shaking tables (Murthy and
Tripathy, 2020). Beneficiation of the Chromite ore through
magnetic separation technique has been attempted by vari-
ous researchers for both Siliceous. (Abubakre et al., 2007
Ayinla et al., 2019 Hayslip and Jenkins, 1965 Keramat
and Garmsiri, 2019 Mmh et al., 2019 Mokoena and
Nheta, n.d. Subandrio et al., 2019) and Ferrugineous ore
(Tripathy et al., 2019, 2017, 2016, 2012).
A summary of the findings has been tabulated in
Table 1. From the Table 1, it is observed that there is a chal-
lenge to reduce the silica content using magnetic separa-
tion alone, but a combination of gravity concentration and
magnetic separation can effectively reduce silica(Subandrio
et al., 2019). Applying magnetic separation techniques,
such as cross-belt magnetic separators and WHIMS, has
also shown promise in improving the Cr2O3 content of
chromite ores from different sources.
Table 1. Literature search on beneficiation of chromite ore with magnetic separation
Sl.No Feed Chemistry Mineral Phases
Particle
Size Process
Product
Chemistry
Recovery &
Yield Reference
1 Cr2O3: 36.84%,
SiO2 :13.74%,
FeO: 21.51
‚ ROM Magnetic
separation:
Cross belt
43.97
–44.68%
Cr2O3
70–82% (Abubakre et al., 2007)
2 Sample A:
SiO2:4.9
Sample B
SiO2: 5.2
Sample C
SiO2: 3.6
Chromite, Serpentine
(Chlorite)
Rom Cross belt
dry magnetic
separator
Sample
A:3.8
Sample
B:4.3
Sample
C:2.7
Yield:
Sample
A:74.4
Sample
B:69.3
Sample
C:85.4
(Hayslip and Jenkins,
1965)
3 Cr
2 O
3 :21.5%,
SiO
2 :32.61%,
Fe
2 O
3 :11.8
Chromite, Antigorite,
Magnetite,
Chabazite,
ROM Magnetic
separation
+Selective
flocculation
45.8%
Cr
2 O
3
80.9–90.78% (Mmh et al., 2019)
4 Cr
2 O
3 :10.24
SiO
2 27.0%
Chromite, Serpentine
(antigorite, lizardrite
and chrysotile)
–2mm gravity
concentration
-Teeter bed
separators,
tabling
Cr
2 O
3 :
51%
Yield :48% (Kuldeyev et al., 2021)
5 Cr2O3: 20.23%,
Fe2O3: 16.2%,
SiO2: 16.35%,
Al2O3 :26.75%
chromite,
ochreous goethite,
martite, magnetite,
pyrite, and silicate
phases (spinel) and
clay (kaolinite and
gibbsite).
–1mm Gravity:
concentration:
Falcon
concentrator
41.71%
Cr2O3
Recovery:
68.2%
(Rath et al., n.d.)
6 Cr2O3: ~16%,
SiO2: ~55%
Fe2O3: 7.9%
Chromite, quartz,
fuchsite and kaolinite
ROM Gravity
concentration
(shaking table)
&Magnetic
separation:
WHIMS
40.1%
Cr2O3
Yield: 23%
Recovery:
58%
(Das et al., 2020)
7 Cr
2 O
3 :
47.3%–48.3
Goethite, hematite,
magnetite,
hydroxides of
chromium, iron
aluminium silicates,
quartz
ROM Washing +Dry
belt magnetic
separator
53.4.–
55.4%
Cr
2 O
Yield: 9–29%
Recovery :
10–33%
(Rao et al., 1997)
techniques are spirals and shaking tables (Murthy and
Tripathy, 2020). Beneficiation of the Chromite ore through
magnetic separation technique has been attempted by vari-
ous researchers for both Siliceous. (Abubakre et al., 2007
Ayinla et al., 2019 Hayslip and Jenkins, 1965 Keramat
and Garmsiri, 2019 Mmh et al., 2019 Mokoena and
Nheta, n.d. Subandrio et al., 2019) and Ferrugineous ore
(Tripathy et al., 2019, 2017, 2016, 2012).
A summary of the findings has been tabulated in
Table 1. From the Table 1, it is observed that there is a chal-
lenge to reduce the silica content using magnetic separa-
tion alone, but a combination of gravity concentration and
magnetic separation can effectively reduce silica(Subandrio
et al., 2019). Applying magnetic separation techniques,
such as cross-belt magnetic separators and WHIMS, has
also shown promise in improving the Cr2O3 content of
chromite ores from different sources.
Table 1. Literature search on beneficiation of chromite ore with magnetic separation
Sl.No Feed Chemistry Mineral Phases
Particle
Size Process
Product
Chemistry
Recovery &
Yield Reference
1 Cr2O3: 36.84%,
SiO2 :13.74%,
FeO: 21.51
‚ ROM Magnetic
separation:
Cross belt
43.97
–44.68%
Cr2O3
70–82% (Abubakre et al., 2007)
2 Sample A:
SiO2:4.9
Sample B
SiO2: 5.2
Sample C
SiO2: 3.6
Chromite, Serpentine
(Chlorite)
Rom Cross belt
dry magnetic
separator
Sample
A:3.8
Sample
B:4.3
Sample
C:2.7
Yield:
Sample
A:74.4
Sample
B:69.3
Sample
C:85.4
(Hayslip and Jenkins,
1965)
3 Cr
2 O
3 :21.5%,
SiO
2 :32.61%,
Fe
2 O
3 :11.8
Chromite, Antigorite,
Magnetite,
Chabazite,
ROM Magnetic
separation
+Selective
flocculation
45.8%
Cr
2 O
3
80.9–90.78% (Mmh et al., 2019)
4 Cr
2 O
3 :10.24
SiO
2 27.0%
Chromite, Serpentine
(antigorite, lizardrite
and chrysotile)
–2mm gravity
concentration
-Teeter bed
separators,
tabling
Cr
2 O
3 :
51%
Yield :48% (Kuldeyev et al., 2021)
5 Cr2O3: 20.23%,
Fe2O3: 16.2%,
SiO2: 16.35%,
Al2O3 :26.75%
chromite,
ochreous goethite,
martite, magnetite,
pyrite, and silicate
phases (spinel) and
clay (kaolinite and
gibbsite).
–1mm Gravity:
concentration:
Falcon
concentrator
41.71%
Cr2O3
Recovery:
68.2%
(Rath et al., n.d.)
6 Cr2O3: ~16%,
SiO2: ~55%
Fe2O3: 7.9%
Chromite, quartz,
fuchsite and kaolinite
ROM Gravity
concentration
(shaking table)
&Magnetic
separation:
WHIMS
40.1%
Cr2O3
Yield: 23%
Recovery:
58%
(Das et al., 2020)
7 Cr
2 O
3 :
47.3%–48.3
Goethite, hematite,
magnetite,
hydroxides of
chromium, iron
aluminium silicates,
quartz
ROM Washing +Dry
belt magnetic
separator
53.4.–
55.4%
Cr
2 O
Yield: 9–29%
Recovery :
10–33%
(Rao et al., 1997)