List of Tables

Table 1 Difference between floatability and hydrophobicity .......................................................... 1 Table 2 the entrained gangue for the control test ........................................................................... 7 Table 3 the entrained gangue for 100 g/t dosage for Guar gum and CMC ................................. 7 Table 4 the entrained gangue for 300 g/t dosage for Guar gum and CMC ................................. 7 Table 5 the entrained gangue for 500 g/t dosage for Guar gum and CMC................................ 7 Table 6 Data for final mass and water recoveries ......................................................................... 10

List of Figures
Figure 1 Plot of water recovered versus time for all tests conducted .......................................... 2 Figure 2 Plot of copper grade versus recovery for all tests conducted ........................................ 3 Figure 3 Plot of nickel grade versus recovery for all tests conducted .......................................... 3 Figure 4 Plot of copper recovery versus water for all tests conducted ........................................ 4 Figure 5 Plot of copper recovery versus water for all tests conducted ........................................ 4 Figure 6 Plot of final mass and water recoveries for all tests conducted .................................... 5

i|Page

1. Question 1
1.1. Role of collectors in flotation
The main role of collectors is to create hydrophobicity of valuable mineral. The collector attaches to the desired mineral imparting hydrophobicity to the mineral/collector complex.

1.2. Effect of alkyl chain

The alkyl chain is vital to the collectors performance and optimising the mineral separation (Lumsden, 2008). Collectors are heteropolar molecules containing a non-polar hydrocarbon chain, which renders the particle hydrophobic (Wills, 2006). In the case of sulphide minerals, the minerals are held together by van der Waals forces, and the non-polar surfaces do not readily attach themselves to the water dipoles. Generally, the longer the hydrophobic alkyl chain the less selective the collector becomes whereas if the alkyl chain is too long then the collector is unselective and will recover a lot of waste material in the concentrate stream. Furthermore, if the alkyl chain too long then the collector tends to be insoluble in water, thus it is more difficult for the collector to attach to the mineral particles.

2. Question 2
Hydrophobicity: When a solid surface cannot bond with water. Hydrophilicity: When a solid surface bond easily with water.

3. Question 3
Table 1 Difference between floatability and hydrophobicity Floatability Is the kinetic characteristic of flotation and incorporates other particle properties affecting amenability to flotation. It is measured by bubble loading, induction time and floatability index. Hydrophobicity Is a thermodynamic characteristic of flotation It is measured by contact angle, critical surface tension of wetting, ToSIMS and Gibbs free energy

1|Page

I think floatability is the more important factor on a plant. Floatability is the property that is exploited to effect separation of a mineral from an ore. Consequently, quantifying the floatability distribution of the feed to a floatation process is vital to understanding the behaviour of the system. This is vital whenever one is interested in operating or controlling a process, improving a process, adapting a process to new equipment, or designing a new process. Furthermore, it can be seen in Table 1 that floatability the kinetic characteristic and it incorporates other particle properties that affect amenability to flotation.

4. Question 4
The collector type is more likely to affect the froth phase. The collector type plays a major in the foam stability .They adsorb at the gas-liquid interface and change the interfacial properties. The froth phase consists of air bubbles, particles and water, its stability to transport particles into the concentrate launder is crucially determined by the structure and stability of the froth which is affected by the collector type.

5. Question 5
5.1. Batch floatation test-work
5.1.1. Water recovery

Figure 1 Plot of water recovered versus time for all tests conducted
2|Page

5.1.2. Recovery and grade of copper and nickel

Figure 2 Plot of copper grade versus recovery for all tests conducted

Figure 3 Plot of nickel grade versus recovery for all tests conducted
3|Page

5.1.3. Recovery of copper and nickel

Figure 4 Plot of copper recovery versus water for all tests conducted

Figure 5 Plot of copper recovery versus water for all tests conducted

4|Page

5.2. Final mass and water recoveries

Figure 6 Plot of final mass and water recoveries for all tests conducted

6. Question 6
6.1. Effect of increasing depressant
Figure 6 shows that for all depressant dosages, increasing the dosage resulted in a decrease in water recovery and a corresponding decrease in the mass reporting to the concentrate stream. Wiese et al (2010) suggested that the addition of depressant, either Guar gum or CMC, significantly reduce froth stability and the mass and water recovered. 6.2. Effect of changing depressant type It can be seen in Figure 6 that changing the depressant type to CMC led to a further decrease of water and mass recovery.

5|Page

6.3. Optimum depressant dosage for the system

I strongly believe there is an optimum depressant dosage for this system. As explained in part 6.1 increasing depressants dosage, either Guar or CMC results in reduced recoveries of mass or water to the concentrate stream. Nevertheless, increasing depressants dosage result in increased grades of desired minerals (copper and nickel). Furthermore, the recovery of copper was high in the case where there was no depressant. Thus, an optimum value of depressant can be chosen depending on the objectives of the design or process.

6.4. Changes in copper and nickel recoveries

Figure 2 and 3 shows the recoveries of copper and nickel, respectively, for all tests conducted. The highest recovery of copper was attained in the control test where no depressant was used whereas the highest recovery of nickel was attained in the 100 g/t Guar gum depressant type. The grades of copper and nickel are low and imply an addition of depressant is required It therefore can be seen in Figure 2 and 3, increasing the depressant dosage to 300 g/t and further to 500 g/t, both for Guar gum and CMC, results in a significant increase in the grade of copper and nickel.

6.5. Entrained gangue

(1) (2)

Given in the problem statement: Entrainment factor = 0.032 Consider the data for C1, Guar gum at 100 g/t

=1.60 g

= 2.94 g

Similar calculations were performed at 300 and 500 g/t for C2, C3 and C4, respectively, for Guar gum and CMC depressant types.

6|Page

Table 2 the entrained gangue for the control test

Sample C1 C2 C3 C4

Total gangue (g) Entrained gangue (g) Floatable gangue (g) 8.3 2.5 5.8 19.8 5.7 14.1 31.7 9.3 22.4 42.2 13.2 29.0

Table 3 the entrained gangue for 100 g/t dosage for Guar gum and CMC
Depressant type Sample Total gangue (g) Entrained gangue (g) Floatable gangue (g) C1 4.6 1.6 2.9 C2 11.9 4.4 7.5 C3 20.0 7.7 12.4 Guar gum C4 28.5 11.9 16.6 C1 1.7 0.4 1.3 C2 8.7 2.8 5.8 C3 16.8 5.9 11.0 CMC C4 26.3 9.7 16.6

Table 4 the entrained gangue for 300 g/t dosage for Guar gum and CMC
Depressant type Sample Total gangue (g) Entrained gangue (g) Floatable gangue (g) C1 4.2 3.2 1.0 C2 8.0 6.0 2.0 C3 12.0 9.1 3.0 Guar gum C4 16.9 12.4 4.5 C1 0.4 0.6 -0.2 C2 2.3 2.8 -0.5 C3 4.4 4.9 -0.5 CMC C4 6.9 6.9 0.1

Table 5 the entrained gangue for 500 g/t dosage for Guar gum and CMC
Depressant type Sample Total gangue (g) Entrained gangue (g) Floatable gangue (g) C1 5.3 3.4 1.8 C2 7.9 6.1 1.8 C3 9.7 8.0 1.7 Guar gum C4 12.0 10.2 1.8 C1 0.6 0.4 0.2 C2 2.3 1.7 0.6 C3 3.8 3.4 0.4 CMC C4 4.8 4.5 0.3

7|Page

7. Question 7
The three changes to the reagent suite that would increase grade, irrespective of recovery are as follows:

7.1. Select best collector type

The adsorption of collectors on the surface of minerals renders them hydrophobic and enables bubble-particle bonding. Wills (2006) suggested that it is thus vital for flotation collectors to be very selective thereby preventing flotation of undesired gangue minerals and thus increasing the grade of the concentrate stream. Nevertheless, the process of selecting and attaining an optimum collector type might be very expensive. Forbes (2007) suggested that in cases where the collector type being chosen is not efficient i.e. will not naturally adsorb onto the desired mineral surfaces, an activator such as copper sulphate should be added to increase the effectiveness of the collector. The activator will activate the surfaces so that the collector will be able to attach to the desired material thereby minimising the activation of the gangue minerals. This will reduce the amount of gangue reporting in the concentrate stream thereby increasing the grade.

7.2. Optimise depressant dosage

From the results presented in Question 5, one can see that increasing the dosage results in higher grades. However, Forbes (2007) suggested that dosing too little frother will result in an unstable froth hence the froth will eventually collapse, resulting in minimal concentrate being generated. Moreover, higher frother dosage can eventually yield an unstable froth thereby minimising the drainage of entrained particles, resulting in a lower concentrated grade.

7.3. Optimise frother dosage

The adsorption of depressants on the surface of minerals renders them hydrophobic. It has been shown that similarly to collectors, depressants are required to be very selective as to prevent flotation of undesired gangue minerals (Forbes, 2007).This ensures the valuable minerals are not depressed and thus increases the grade of the concentrate stream. Furthermore, increasing the froth dosage result in a stable froth hence lower grade. Depressants are expensive reagents and higher frother dosages may result in downstream problems in a concentrator (Wiese, 2011).

8|Page

7.4. Best reagent

I think the selection of the correct collector type is the best option to ensure efficiency of froth flotation process. As explained above, collectors adsorb on mineral surface rendering them hydrophobic. This is vital since the attachment of valuable minerals to air bubbles is the most essential mechanism in flotation and represents the majority of particles that are recovered to the concentrate stream (Wills, 2006). However, minerals can only attach to the air bubbles if they are hydrophobic hence the best collector is must be used.

8. Question 8
Water represents 80-85 % of the volume of mineral pulp processed in flotation circuits (Levay et al, 2001). Muzenda (2010) reported that the water sources differ in pH, total dissolved solids and conductivity. Consequently, process water tends to reduce the concentrate recovery and mass pull whereas potable water reduces the concentrate grade while process water increases the concentrate grade. It has been proposed to utilise a combination of potable and process water in flotation process to balance the effects that the different water types have on the flotation efficiency (Muzenda, 2010). The demand of water in flotation is a problem in countries like South Africa since many sites are located in water scarce regions and water control has become an increasing requirement. South Africa is a semi-arid country and is set to become even drier in the near future. Therefore, companies might have to look for alternative water supplies such as recycled water from tailings dam, water from bore holes or treated sewage effluent water which contains relative high levels of organic carbon.

9|Page

9. References
1. Brandshaw, D.J. Harris, P.J. and Connor, C.T. 1998. Synergistic interactions between reagents in sulphide flotation. The journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. 189-197. 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froth_flotation [2013 April 13]. 3. Wills, B.A. 2006. Froth flotation. Mineral Processing Technology. 7: 267-353. 4. Lumsden, B.G.2008. Improving mineral recovery from ore. 1-6. 5. Mular, A.L., Halbe, D.N. and Barratt, D.J. 2002. Mineral Process Plant design, Practice, and Control. 1: 465-470. 6. Wiese, J.G., Harris, P.J. and Bradshaw, D.J.2010. The effect of increases frother dosage on froth stability at high depressant dosages. 23:1010-107. 7. Chen, C.2012.Development of measurement of froth characteristics. 1-50. 8. Levay, G., Smart,R.C. Skinner, W.M.2001. The impact of water quality on flotation performance. The journal of The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 69-76. 9. Muzenda, E.2010. An investigation onto the effect of water quality on flotation performance. 10. Forbes, G. 2007. Texture and Bubble Size Measurements for Modelling Concentrate Grade in Flotation Froth System. 37-40. 11. Wiese, J.G., Harris, P.J. and Bradshaw, D.J.2011. The effect of reagent suit on froth stability in laboratory scale batch floatation tests. 24:995-1003.

10. Appendix
Table 6 Data for final mass and water recoveries

Control test 100g/ton Guar 300g/ton Guar 500g/ton Guar 100g/ton CMC 300g/ton CMC 500g/ton CMC

Mass (g) 50.48 36.21 24.19 17.31 10.53 14.55 10.58

Water Rec (g) 411.63 372.04 387.71 317.25 301.98 215.46 139.54

10 | P a g e