6
indicating that mist suppression is low with only FC1100
(0 contacts). At one contact, suppression efficiency increases
significantly to 69.737%, nearly double that of 0 contacts.
This shows that a single interaction between the surfactant
and the mist source has a significant impact. The suppres-
sion efficiency drops somewhat after one contact, reaching
61.751% and 63.056% for 5 and 10 contacts, respectively.
This shows that increasing the number of contacts beyond
one gives a declining return.
Both plots demonstrate a considerable increase in sup-
pression efficiency with the first contact, emphasizing the
significance of the first contact between the electrolyte-sur-
factant and organic. The Electrolyte-Licorice and Organic
mixture has a higher peak efficiency after one contact
than the Electrolyte-FC1100 and Organic combination.
However, the efficiency of both combinations decreases or
declines as the number of contacts increases. This shows
that, after a certain point, increasing the number of contacts
does not result in additional improvements in mist suppres-
sion and may even decrease effectiveness significantly.
CONCLUSION
This laboratory study investigated the effects of organic sol-
vents and surfactants on the suppression of sulfuric acid
mist. The study used a series of controlled tests to exam-
ine the relationship between the number of interactions
between electrolyte-surfactants and organic solutions and
their efficacy in reducing mist concentration. The results
showed that increasing the number of contacts generally
reduced mist concentration however, the magnitude of this
decrease varied depending on the electrolyte-surfactant and
organic solution combinations employed. For example,
in the electrolyte-FC1100 +Organic, mist concentration
dropped considerably after the first contact, but additional
interactions produced diminishing returns. Similarly, in the
electrolyte-Licorice +Organic, the first contact significantly
reduced mist concentration, whereas subsequent contacts
showed more moderate benefits. These data indicate that
while increasing the number of contacts can improve mist
suppression, there may be a point at which more contacts
provide little benefit. The variable efficiency of different
surfactants and organic solvents emphasizes the need to
select the right chemical mixture for the best results.
Overall, this study illuminates the mechanics of acid
mist suppression. However, more research is needed to
investigate the scalability of these findings and assess the
long-term impacts of the chemicals selected in various
operational settings. Furthermore, a more in-depth investi-
gation of the interactions between various chemical agents
and their effects on mist suppression efficiency would help
advance this field.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Moats and M. Free, “A Bright Future for copper
electrowinning,” JOM, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 34–36,
Oct. 2007, DOI: 10.1007/s11837-007-0128-y.
[2] N. T. Beukes and J. Badenhorst, “Copper electrowin-
ning: Theoretical and practical design,” J. South. Afr.
Inst. Min. Metall., vol. 109, no. 6, pp. 343–356, Jun.
2009.
[3] J.-L. Liow, A. Frazer, and Y. He, “Acid mist formation
in the electrowinning of copper”.
[4] H. Wang, X. Yu, Y. L. Sun, and Y. H. Huang,
“Research Progress of the Methods of Acid Mist
Suppression,” Appl. Mech. Mater., vol. 275–277,
pp. 2308–2311, 2013, DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific
.net/AMM.275-277.2308.
[5] J. L. Sigley, P. C. Johnson, and S. P. Beaudoin, “Use of
nonionic surfactant to reduce sulfuric acid mist in the
copper electrowinning processa,” Hydrometallurgy,
vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 1–8, Jul. 2003, DOI: 10.1016
/S0304-386X(03)00077-X.
[6] A. f. Otero, R. M. S. Martin, and A. Cruz, “Successful
Industrial Use of Quillaja Saponins (Quillaja
Saponaria Molina) for Acid Mist Suppression in
Copper Electrowinning Process,” in Electrometallurgy
and Environmental Hydrometallurgy, John Wiley
&Sons, Ltd, 2003, pp. 1331–1339. DOI:
10.1002/9781118804407.ch20.
[7] T. Komulainen, F. J. Doyle III, A. Rantala, and
S.-L. Jämsä-Jounela, “Control of an industrial cop-
per solvent extraction process,” J. Process Control,
vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 2–15, Jan. 2009, DOI: 10.1016
/j.jprocont.2008.04.019.
[8] P. Navarro Donoso, C. Vargas Riquelme, J. Castillo,
and R. Sepúlveda, “Experimental study of phase
entrainment in copper solvent extraction,” DYNA,
vol. 87, no. 213, pp. 85–90, Apr. 2020, DOI:
10.15446/dyna.v87n213.84413.
[9] K. Ochromowicz and T. Chmielewski, “Growing
role of solvent extraction in copper ores processing,”
Fizykochem. Probl. Miner., vol. 42, pp. 29–36, Jan.
2008.
[10] M. Ghanbari, H. Naderi, and M. Torabi,
“Comparison of various extractants for recovery of
Copper from Sarcheshmeh Chalcopyrite concen-
trate Ammonia/Ammonium Carbonate Leaching,”
J. Min. Environ., no. Online First, Dec. 2017, DOI:
10.22044/jme.2017.6455.1465.
indicating that mist suppression is low with only FC1100
(0 contacts). At one contact, suppression efficiency increases
significantly to 69.737%, nearly double that of 0 contacts.
This shows that a single interaction between the surfactant
and the mist source has a significant impact. The suppres-
sion efficiency drops somewhat after one contact, reaching
61.751% and 63.056% for 5 and 10 contacts, respectively.
This shows that increasing the number of contacts beyond
one gives a declining return.
Both plots demonstrate a considerable increase in sup-
pression efficiency with the first contact, emphasizing the
significance of the first contact between the electrolyte-sur-
factant and organic. The Electrolyte-Licorice and Organic
mixture has a higher peak efficiency after one contact
than the Electrolyte-FC1100 and Organic combination.
However, the efficiency of both combinations decreases or
declines as the number of contacts increases. This shows
that, after a certain point, increasing the number of contacts
does not result in additional improvements in mist suppres-
sion and may even decrease effectiveness significantly.
CONCLUSION
This laboratory study investigated the effects of organic sol-
vents and surfactants on the suppression of sulfuric acid
mist. The study used a series of controlled tests to exam-
ine the relationship between the number of interactions
between electrolyte-surfactants and organic solutions and
their efficacy in reducing mist concentration. The results
showed that increasing the number of contacts generally
reduced mist concentration however, the magnitude of this
decrease varied depending on the electrolyte-surfactant and
organic solution combinations employed. For example,
in the electrolyte-FC1100 +Organic, mist concentration
dropped considerably after the first contact, but additional
interactions produced diminishing returns. Similarly, in the
electrolyte-Licorice +Organic, the first contact significantly
reduced mist concentration, whereas subsequent contacts
showed more moderate benefits. These data indicate that
while increasing the number of contacts can improve mist
suppression, there may be a point at which more contacts
provide little benefit. The variable efficiency of different
surfactants and organic solvents emphasizes the need to
select the right chemical mixture for the best results.
Overall, this study illuminates the mechanics of acid
mist suppression. However, more research is needed to
investigate the scalability of these findings and assess the
long-term impacts of the chemicals selected in various
operational settings. Furthermore, a more in-depth investi-
gation of the interactions between various chemical agents
and their effects on mist suppression efficiency would help
advance this field.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Moats and M. Free, “A Bright Future for copper
electrowinning,” JOM, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 34–36,
Oct. 2007, DOI: 10.1007/s11837-007-0128-y.
[2] N. T. Beukes and J. Badenhorst, “Copper electrowin-
ning: Theoretical and practical design,” J. South. Afr.
Inst. Min. Metall., vol. 109, no. 6, pp. 343–356, Jun.
2009.
[3] J.-L. Liow, A. Frazer, and Y. He, “Acid mist formation
in the electrowinning of copper”.
[4] H. Wang, X. Yu, Y. L. Sun, and Y. H. Huang,
“Research Progress of the Methods of Acid Mist
Suppression,” Appl. Mech. Mater., vol. 275–277,
pp. 2308–2311, 2013, DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific
.net/AMM.275-277.2308.
[5] J. L. Sigley, P. C. Johnson, and S. P. Beaudoin, “Use of
nonionic surfactant to reduce sulfuric acid mist in the
copper electrowinning processa,” Hydrometallurgy,
vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 1–8, Jul. 2003, DOI: 10.1016
/S0304-386X(03)00077-X.
[6] A. f. Otero, R. M. S. Martin, and A. Cruz, “Successful
Industrial Use of Quillaja Saponins (Quillaja
Saponaria Molina) for Acid Mist Suppression in
Copper Electrowinning Process,” in Electrometallurgy
and Environmental Hydrometallurgy, John Wiley
&Sons, Ltd, 2003, pp. 1331–1339. DOI:
10.1002/9781118804407.ch20.
[7] T. Komulainen, F. J. Doyle III, A. Rantala, and
S.-L. Jämsä-Jounela, “Control of an industrial cop-
per solvent extraction process,” J. Process Control,
vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 2–15, Jan. 2009, DOI: 10.1016
/j.jprocont.2008.04.019.
[8] P. Navarro Donoso, C. Vargas Riquelme, J. Castillo,
and R. Sepúlveda, “Experimental study of phase
entrainment in copper solvent extraction,” DYNA,
vol. 87, no. 213, pp. 85–90, Apr. 2020, DOI:
10.15446/dyna.v87n213.84413.
[9] K. Ochromowicz and T. Chmielewski, “Growing
role of solvent extraction in copper ores processing,”
Fizykochem. Probl. Miner., vol. 42, pp. 29–36, Jan.
2008.
[10] M. Ghanbari, H. Naderi, and M. Torabi,
“Comparison of various extractants for recovery of
Copper from Sarcheshmeh Chalcopyrite concen-
trate Ammonia/Ammonium Carbonate Leaching,”
J. Min. Environ., no. Online First, Dec. 2017, DOI:
10.22044/jme.2017.6455.1465.