4
Feed, tails, and concentrate samples were collected,
with concentrate samples taken directly from the launder
outlet chute of cell 704 using a sample cutter, as shown
in Figure 3. Feed and tails samples were obtained using
a diaphragm pump connected to a rigid sample line (see
Figure 4), installed at a depth of 22 feet 9 inches—approxi-
mately halfway down the feed inlet. The sampling pipe for
feed was positioned in cell 704, while the tails sampling
pipe was placed at the corresponding location in cell 705,
assuming the tail flow from cell 704 matched the feed for
cell 705.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
To compare the results of four separate sampling rounds
the plant conditions during the surveys should be carefully
evaluated. Figure 5 shows the copper grades of the feed
samples. As it can be seen there was variation during the
survey and in between the surveys. To minimize the effect
of feed grade on the Cu grade enrichment ratio, concen-
trate grade/feed grade, was calculated.
In each CCRD survey there is 6 repetitions of same
setting to understand the variation of the process during
the survey. Table 1 shows the average and standard devia-
tions of the key measurements of these 6 repeated sampling
rounds.
As can be seen from Table 1, both the copper enrich-
ment ratio and the recovery, had a quite large standard devi-
ation within the repeated samples. Sampling error samples
were also collected during the surveys and results are shown
in Table 2. Especially the concentrate grades had quite large
relative standard deviation and that is why the metallurgi-
cal comparison between the FloatForce+ and FloatForce is
not possible. Different kind of sampling campaign should
Figure 3. Concentrate sample collection from
the launder outlet chute of the cell
Figure 4. Feed and tails sample collection using diaphragm
pump
Figure 5. Copper grade of the feed samples during the
surveys
Table 1. The key measurements of the CCRD results of four
surveys
FF+ S1 FF S1
Average Stdev. Average Stdev.
Cu %Rec. 9.0 5.1 8.4 2.9
Cu ER 212.5 113.6 11.1 9.9
FF+ S2 FF S2
Average Stdev. Average Stdev.
Cu %Rec. 8.7 6.4 12.7 3.8
Cu ER 22.8 11.1 57.2 38.0
Feed, tails, and concentrate samples were collected,
with concentrate samples taken directly from the launder
outlet chute of cell 704 using a sample cutter, as shown
in Figure 3. Feed and tails samples were obtained using
a diaphragm pump connected to a rigid sample line (see
Figure 4), installed at a depth of 22 feet 9 inches—approxi-
mately halfway down the feed inlet. The sampling pipe for
feed was positioned in cell 704, while the tails sampling
pipe was placed at the corresponding location in cell 705,
assuming the tail flow from cell 704 matched the feed for
cell 705.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
To compare the results of four separate sampling rounds
the plant conditions during the surveys should be carefully
evaluated. Figure 5 shows the copper grades of the feed
samples. As it can be seen there was variation during the
survey and in between the surveys. To minimize the effect
of feed grade on the Cu grade enrichment ratio, concen-
trate grade/feed grade, was calculated.
In each CCRD survey there is 6 repetitions of same
setting to understand the variation of the process during
the survey. Table 1 shows the average and standard devia-
tions of the key measurements of these 6 repeated sampling
rounds.
As can be seen from Table 1, both the copper enrich-
ment ratio and the recovery, had a quite large standard devi-
ation within the repeated samples. Sampling error samples
were also collected during the surveys and results are shown
in Table 2. Especially the concentrate grades had quite large
relative standard deviation and that is why the metallurgi-
cal comparison between the FloatForce+ and FloatForce is
not possible. Different kind of sampling campaign should
Figure 3. Concentrate sample collection from
the launder outlet chute of the cell
Figure 4. Feed and tails sample collection using diaphragm
pump
Figure 5. Copper grade of the feed samples during the
surveys
Table 1. The key measurements of the CCRD results of four
surveys
FF+ S1 FF S1
Average Stdev. Average Stdev.
Cu %Rec. 9.0 5.1 8.4 2.9
Cu ER 212.5 113.6 11.1 9.9
FF+ S2 FF S2
Average Stdev. Average Stdev.
Cu %Rec. 8.7 6.4 12.7 3.8
Cu ER 22.8 11.1 57.2 38.0