See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269159256

OPTIMIZATION OF SHAKING TABLE AND DRY MAGNETIC SEPARATION ON

RECOVERY OF EGYPTIAN PLACER CASSITERITE USING EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
TECHNIQUE

Article · January 2009

CITATION READS
1 2,274

1 author:

Sayed Rabie
Central Metallurgical Research and Development Institute
12 PUBLICATIONS   108 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Separation of Niobium & Tantalum and other valuable minerals from Egyptian placer ores View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sayed Rabie on 06 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

OPTIMIZATION OF SHAKING TABLE AND DRY MAGNETIC SEPARATION ON
RECOVERY OF EGYPTIAN PLACER CASSITERITE USING EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
TECHNIQUE

M. A. Youssef 1, M.K. Abd El-Rahman 1, N.H. Helal 2, M. M. El- Rabiei 2, S. R. Elsaidy 1

1Central Metallurgical Research of Development Institute, P.O. Box :87, Helwan, Cairo, Egypt
2 Faculty of Science, Fayoum University

ABSTRACT: Experimental design technique is applied to optimize shaking table and dry high intensity magnetic
separation processes on recovery of cassiterite from Igla Placer ore of Eastern Desert of Egypt. It could
investigate the effects of individual operating parameters and their interactions for both shaking table and dry
high intensity magnetic separation processes. Applying the optimum conditions for both separation techniques
showed that in case of shaking table separation concentrate containing 13.2% SnO2 and recovery of 86.2% by
weight SnO2 was obtained from a feed containing about 0.048 % SnO2. Cleaning of this concentrate by using dry
high intensity magnetic separation a final concentrate with 90.67% SnO2 and operational recovery of 96.7% SnO2
by weight was obtained.
Keywords: Cassiterite, shaking table, dry high intensity magnetic separation, Box-Behnken design, statistical experimental design

1. INTRODUCTION ore of 0.12 % tin is concentrated by three-stage

Cassiterite (SnO2) is known as tinstone, stannic
oxide, tin (IV) oxide. It has many different industrial
applications such as ceramics, coating cans, pigments
[1], sensors of combustible gases [2], high voltage
varistors [3-4], and as electrode. It has a high specific
gravity (6.8 - 7.1) and a Moh’s scale hardness
of 6 to 7. There are two types of cassiterite, alluvial
placer and lode cassiterite. Alluvial placer cassiterite is
the major source of tin concentrate [5]. Tin placers
contain recoverable amounts of other heavy minerals
such as columbite-tantalite, wolframite, ilmenite, and
monazite [6-10]. About 70% of total world tin
production is produced from placer deposits [11].
About 35 countries mine tin throughout the world.
China, Indonesia, Peru, Bolivia and Brazil accounted
for about 95% of the world tin production [12].
Gravity technique is more recommended for
recovery of cassiterite due to the large difference in
specific gravity between cassiterite (6.8-7.1) and the
gangue silicate minerals (2.6) [13-16]. Cassiterite
could be upgraded by washing, tabling, and magnetic
or electrostatic separation. The final product is
virtually pure cassiterite. On the other hand lode
cassiterite deposit is reduced to the necessary size by
conventional crushing and grinding. The prepared
feed is concentrated by gravity methods that involve
screening, classification, jigging, and tabling. The
concentrate is usually a lower grade than placer
concentrate owing to associated sulfide minerals [5].
The unit operation to prepare primary cassiterite
concentrate in Malaysia and Thailand is the sluice
box used on alluvial deposits known as palongs. The
concentrate contains about 15 to 30 % tin and the
recovery efficiency can be up to 80 % [13]. At Iscor's
Uis Mine in South West Africa, a very low-grade tin
jigging, spiral concentration, and tabling to give a
high-grade concentrate of 63% tin with a recovery of
80% of the tin [17]. Induced-roll magnetic separator
has been successfully used in cassiterite recovery and
series of experiments have been performed on
cassiterite/wolframite separations [18]. A comparison
of the performance of the Bartles Crossbelt
performance with a standard slimes table, treating a
feed of 0.7% Sn grade and 97% -40 um, showed a
similar overall recovery of just 55% but the Crossbelt
produced a grade of 32% Sn compared with just 13%
Sn for the slime table [19].
In Egypt most cassiterite placers present in the
Eastern Desert. The most common localities are
Igla, Mueilha, Abu Dabab, and Nuweibi [20-22].
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
2.1 Material
A representative sample of Igla placer ore from Igla
locality about two tons was used in this study.
Complete chemical analysis, using “type” X-ray
fluorescence and for phase analysis using X- ray
diffractometer model “PW 1010” was conducted.
2.2. Experimental Methods
2.2.1. Processing of Igla Placer Cassiterite
A representative sample was crushed using the jaw
crusher to prepare a feed about 3.36 mm for the
grinding process. The grinding process is carried out
for in closed circuit using “Denver” pilot rod mill
and sieve size 125 micron. The ground product from
125 to 80 micron was used as a feed for shaking table
separation.
2 Volume 11 - Issue 22

2.2.2. Separation Techniques for Igla Placer Cassiterite

The separation techniques involve a pilot
“Wilfley” shaking table gravity separator and
“Ereiz” dry high intensity rare earth magnetic
roll separator.

2.2.3. Shaking Table Separation Experiments

The feed is introduced onto an inclined plane and
reciprocated deck and moves in the direction of
motion while simultaneously being washed by a
water film, which moves it also at right angles to the Figure 1. “Eriez” three stage rare earth magnetic roll
motion of the deck. The feed enters at the top of the separator
table, and collects within the valleys formed by the
Table 1. List of symbols
narrow cleats, or riffles, which taper in height from
Symbol Definition Unit
right to left. Under the effect of the reciprocating Symbols used for Shaking Table Separation
action, the particles stratify with the heavier particles Inclination angle degree
α
on the bottom, and they move from right to left. Stroke length cm
β
Owing to decreasing taper of the riffles, the exposed
γ Feed rate gm/min
upper surface of the stratified material is acted upon λ Water flow rate l/ min
by crosscurrents of water and by the inclination of
ρ Grade % by weight
the deck, as indicated by the arrow, and is moved
η Recovery % by weight
downhill. A “Wilfley” shaking table was used in this Symbols used for DryHigh Intensity Magnetic
study, figure 1. Shaking table technique is applied on Separation
feed -0.125 + 0.080 mm size fraction, and four ε Splitter inclination degree
parameters are studied. The parameters are namely; δ Belt speed rpm
inclination angle, stroke length, feed rate and water ϕ Feed rate gm/min
flow rate. μ Grade % by weight
σ Recovery % by weight
Σ Sum of squares
Φ DF
Ψ Mean square
χ F Value
τ Prope > F

2.2.5. Applying Box-Behnken Design (BBD) for Both

Figure 1. Wilfley shaking table unit
1: Sample feeding box, 2: Washing water feeding box, 3: Washing water,
4: Heavy products reservoirs, 5: Light products reservoirs
2.2.4. Dry High Intensity Magnetic Separation Experiments
Dry high intensity magnetic separation was carried
out on the concentrate obtained from shaking table
process using “Eriez” three stage rare earth magnetic
roll separator with permanent field intensity about1.5
tesla, figure 2. Three parameters are studied which
are splitter inclination, belt speed, and feed rate.
Shaking Table and Dry Magnetic Separation
The Box-Behnken Design (BBD) was conducted for
both shaking table and dry high intensity magnetic
separation to determine the most important variables
and the interactions between different variables and
to identify the optimum conditions. According to
this design, the optimal conditions were estimated
using a second order polynomial function by which a
correlation between studied factors and response
(mean diameter) was generated. The general form of
this equation is:

Where: is the predicted response, s are studied

variables; and are the regression
parameters. Software package, Design-Expert 6.0.5,
Stat-Ease, Inc., Minneapolis, USA, was used for
regression analysis of experimental data and to plot
M. A. Youssef, M.K. Abd El-Rahman, N.H. Helal, M. M. El- Rabiei, S. R. Elsaidy / The Journal of ORE DRESSING ® 2009 3

response surface [23]. Analysis of variance separation processes. Table 3 illustrates the factorial
(ANOVA) was used to estimate the statistical design, recovery and grade of cassiterite for both
parameters. The extent of fitting the experimental shaking table and magnetic separation processes.
results to the polynomial model equation was
expressed by the determination coefficient, R2. F-test Table 2. Test levels of parameters for both shaking
was used to estimate the significance of all terms in table and dry high intensity magnetic separation
the polynomial equation within 95% confidence Dry High Intensity Magnetic
Shaking Table Separation
interval. "Adeq Precision" measures the signal to Separation
noise ratio, a ratio greater than 4 is desirable and Symbol (-) (0) (+) Symbol (-) (0) (+)
indicates an adequate signal. α 3 4 5 ε 70 75 80
β 2 2.5 3 δ 50 75 100
Table 2 represents the operating parameters for both γ 100 250 400 ϕ 500 750 1000
shaking table and dry high intensity magnetic λ 15 20 25

Table 3. Factorial design for shaking table and dry magnetic separation
Run Shaking Table Separation Dry Magnetic Separation
α β γ λ ρ η ε δ ϕ μ σ
1 4 3 400 20 7.37 81.4 75 75 750 90.6 96.7
2 5 2.5 400 20 6.87 84 80 75 500 62.5 96.4
3 4 2 100 20 10.6 76.8 80 100 750 58.7 95.6
4 4 2.5 100 25 8.94 82 75 100 1000 77.1 91.2
5 4 3 100 20 5.7 80 75 75 750 90.6 96.7
6 4 3 250 25 7.95 83 75 50 500 81.3 94.6
7 5 2.5 100 20 6.2 81.9 70 50 750 74.6 87.6
8 4 3 250 15 7.46 79.8 70 75 1000 73.2 88.1
9 3 3 250 20 5.79 79.2 75 75 750 90.6 96.7
10 4 2.5 400 25 12.47 83.4 75 75 750 90.6 96.7
11 3 2.5 400 20 9 82.6 80 50 750 61.3 95.7
12 4 2.5 100 15 8.5 81 75 50 1000 79 92.3
13 5 2 250 20 4 74.5 80 75 1000 64.2 96.1
14 3 2.5 100 20 8.2 81.4 75 75 750 90.6 96.7
15 3 2.5 250 15 7.95 80.8 70 100 750 78.6 85.8
16 4 2.5 250 20 13.2 84.9 70 75 500 72.4 89.3
17 4 2.5 250 20 13.2 84.9 75 100 500 78.2 91.7
18 4 2.5 250 20 13.19 84.9
19 5 2.5 250 15 4.5 76.4
20 3 2 250 20 8.8 80.4
21 5 3 250 20 3.4 77.5
22 4 2.5 400 15 9.4 79.4
23 4 2.5 250 20 13.21 84.9
24 4 2 400 20 11.5 77.9
25 4 2 250 25 11.9 80
26 3 2.5 250 25 10 82
27 4 2.5 250 20 13.2 84.9
28 4 2 250 15 9.4 78.4
29 5 2.5 250 25 8.7 88.6

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1.Chemical and Mineralogical analyses of Igla

Placer Cassiterite
The results of complete chemical analysis of the
representative sample of Igla placer cassiterite ore
using X-ray fluorescence are given in table 4. It has
been shown that it contains about 0.048% SnO2.
Figure 3 represents the X-ray diffraction of the Igla
placer tin ore. It is noticed that it involves quartz,
feldspar, actinolite, and mica respectively.
Figure 3. X-ray diffraction of Igla original placer tin
ore
4 Volume 11 - Issue 22

Table 4. Complete chemical analysis of Igla original 3.2. Size Analysis of Original Igla Placer
placer tin ore Cassiterite Ore
Constituent Assay %
Figure 4 shows the grain size analysis of the
SnO2 0.048 cassiterite ore. It is shown that the ore passed 100 %
SiO2 58.6 from 22 mm sieve size. The d80 and d50 of the ore are
Al2 O3 12.01 14 mm and 6.8 mm respectively. It is seen that the
SnO2 % increases with decreasing the size. The
MgO 8.26 distribution percentage of the SnO2 reaches its
CaO 4.90 maximum at size less than 11.3 mm. It is noticed that
Na2O 4.05 the size fraction larger than 11.3 mm represents
K2O 1.79 about 30 % by weight from the cassiterite ore and
contains only about 0.017 % SnO2. Therefore the ore
TiO2 0.53
is screened on the sieve 11.3 mm for preparing a feed
Fe2O3 6.16 for the recovery process. The oversize is discarded
ZrSO4 0.01 and the undersize fraction is used for the recovery
Cl 0.20 process. Table 5 represents the size analysis and
P 2O5 0.11 distribution percentage of SnO2 of the undersize of
the sieve 11.3 mm. The size fraction from 11.3 mm
SO3 0.046 to 0.125 mm represents about 95 % by weight with
L .O. I 3.00 0.061 SnO2 % and 95 % distribution of cassiteriate.
It was crushed and grinding using rod mill in closed
circuit with screen 0.125 mm to prepare a feed for
shaking table.

18 100 0.10
Cum. Wt% passing
16
SnO2 % ( ±0.0005)
14 80 SnO2 Distribution % 0.08
Cumulative Weight % Passing
SnO2 Distribution %

12
60 0.06

SnO2 %
10

8
40 0.04
6

4 20 0.02
2

0 0 0.00
10 100 1000 10000
Size, micron

Figure 4. The relation between the size (micron) of the original sample and cumulative weight %, SnO2 %, and
distribution percentage of the SnO2
Table 5. Size analysis and distribution of the
fine fraction less than 80 micron was taken for falcon
undersize fraction of sieve 11.3 mm separation technique.
Weight SnO2 % Distribution
Size, mm Table 6. Grinding and screening
% (±0.0005) %
-11.3 + 0.9 81.52 0.061 80.80 Size fraction, Weight SnO2 % Distribution
-0.9 + 0.4 7.39 0.060 7.17 (mm) % (±0.0005) %
-0.4 + 0.125 6.60 0.064 6.83 -0.125 + 0.080 45 0.0580 42.08
-11.3 to 0.125 95.51 0.0611 94.8 - 0.080 55 0.0653 57.92
-0.125 + 0.08 1.88 0.060 1.82 Total 100 0.062 100
-0.08 2.61 0.080 3.37
Total 100.00 0.062 100.00 3.4. Relation between Recovery of Cassiterite and
Different Experimental Parameters
3.3. Preparation of Feed for Shaking Table The Design-Expert 6.0 software program was used
The results of grinding and screening of size fraction to analyze each response to the regression model of
less than 11.3 mm are presented in table 6. It has the parameters listed in table 3. Table 3 represents
been noticed that the size fraction -0.125 +0.08 mm groups of experimental data and it could establish the
represent about 45 % by weight with 0.058 % SnO2 multinomial model of the relation between recovery
and 42 distribution percentage of cassiterite . The of cassiterite and the operating parameters. It can be
M. A. Youssef, M.K. Abd El-Rahman, N.H. Helal, M. M. El- Rabiei, S. R. Elsaidy / The Journal of ORE DRESSING ® 2009 5

expressed as equations 2 and 3 for both shaking table separation (λ, α2, β2, αλ) are more significant terms
separation and dry high intensity magnetic and the terms in case dry magnetic separation
separation. The analysis of variance of the ( ε,δ,ϕ,ε2, δ2, ϕ2) are more significant terms. The
multinomial model is given in tables 7 and 8. The values greater than 0.1000 indicate model terms are
model F-value (χ) for both shaking table separation not significant. Table 8 represents the “ANOVA”
and dry magnetic separation represents 5.26 and statistical analysis for both shaking table and dry high
100.79 respectively and it indicates that the model is intensity magnetic separation. The values in that table
significant. There is only 0.19 % and 0.01 % chance indicate the will fitting of the experimental results to
for shaking table and dry magnetic separation that a the polynomial model equations for both shaking
"Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise. table and dry magnetic separation and hence accuracy
Values of "Prob > F" less than 0.0500 indicate model of these models.
terms are significant. The terms in case shaking table
η Recovery = _7.43 _ 2.48 * α + 77.38 * β + 7.76 * γ _ 0.68 * λ _1.8 * α2 _ 17.42 * β2 _ 6.63* γ2 _ 0.045* λ 2 + 2.1* αβ +
1.5* αγ + 0.55* αλ + 1.0* βγ + 0.16* β λ + 1.0* γλ (2)
σ Recovery = -585.05 +16.94* ε + 0.33* δ + 0.014* ϕ - 0.11* ε2 - 4.44* δ2 - 2.36* ϕ2 + 3.40 * εδ + 1.80* εϕ + 7.20*
δϕ (3)

Table 7. ANOVA for response surface 2FI model analysis of variance

Shaking Table Separation
Source Σ Φ Ψ χ τ
Model 231.41 14 16.53 5.26 0.0019
α 1.02 1 1.02 0.32 0.5778
β 13.87 1 13.87 4.41 0.0543
γ 2.61 1 2.61 0.83 0.3773
λ 44.85 1 44.85 14.27 0.0020
α
2 21.11 1 21.11 6.72 0.0213
β
2 122.98 1 122.98 39.12 < 0.0001
γ
2 14.43 1 14.43 4.59 0.0502
λ2 8.09 1 8.09 2.57 0.1310
αβ 4.41 1 4.41 1.40 0.2559
αγ 0.20 1 0.20 0.064 0.8033
αλ 30.25 1 30.25 9.62 0.0078
βγ 0.022 1 0.022 7.158E-003 0.9338
βλ 0.64 1 0.64 0.20 0.6587
γλ 2.25 1 2.25 0.72 0.4117
Residual 44.01 14 3.14
Lack of Fit 44.01 10 4.40
Pure Error 0.00 4 0.00
Cor Total 275.42 28
Dry High Intensity Magnetic Separation
Model 225.81 9 25.09 100.79 < 0.0001
ε 136.13 1 136.13 546.84 < 0.0001
δ 4.35 1 4.35 17.48 0.0041
ϕ 2.31 1 2.31 9.28 0.0187
ε
2 31.84 1 31.84 127.92 < 0.0001
δ
2 32.42 1 32.42 130.25 < 0.0001
ϕ
2 9.16 1 9.16 36.80 0.0005
εδ 0.72 1 0.72 2.90 0.1322
εϕ 0.20 1 0.20 0.81 0.3971
δϕ 0.81 1 0.81 3.25 0.1142
Residual 1.74 7 0.25
Lack of Fit 1.74 3 0.58
Pure Error 0.00 4 0.00
Cor Total 227.55 16
6 Volume 11 - Issue 22

Table 8. ANOVA for response surface quadratic model for the shaking table separation and dry high intensity
magnetic separation
Shaking Table Separation Dry Magnetic Separation
The statistical parameters ρ (Grade %) η (Recovery % μ (Grade %) σ (Recovery %
The standard deviation 0.85 1.77 2.24 0.50
R-squared 0.9575 0.8402 0.9820 0.9923
Adequate precision 15.631 7.879 18.017 28.811

Table 9 summarizes the obtained optimum

3.5. Response Surfaces for the Relation of
Recovery of Cassiterite with Different Parameters
Figure 5 (a & b) represents the response surfaces for
the shaking table cassiterite concentrate product
recovery at different values of studied parameters. In
figure 4a it is noticed that with increasing both
inclination angle and stroke length the recovery value
increases and reaches to the maximum value which is
84.97 % at inclination angle 3.95 degree, and stroke
length 2.56 cm. On the other hand increasing
inclination angle and stroke length more than 3.95
degree and 2.56 cm respectively lead to a slight
decrease in the recovery value. In figure 4b it is
noticed that with increasing both water flow rate and
feed rate the recovery value increases and reaches its
maximum value about 86 % at feed rate 311.15
gm/min, and water flow rate 24.76 l/min. On the
other hand increasing both feed rate and water flow
rate more than 311.15 gm/min and 24.76 l/min
respectively leads to a slight decrease in the recovery
value.
Figure 6 (a & b) illustrates the response surfaces for
parameters for both separation techniques. The
results of applying the optimum parameters obtained
(Table 9) for shaking table separation and dry high
intensity magnetic separation for concentrate
obtained from shaking table are shown in table 10. It
is shown that a shaking table concentrate with 13.2
% SnO2 and 86.2 % recovery is obtained. In case of
dry high intensity magnetic separation a non
magnetic fraction concentrate with 90.67 % SnO2
and 83.36% recovery is obtained. Figures (8 and 9)
represent the X-ray diffraction of both shaking table
concentrate and non magnetic fraction of dry
magnetic separation. The X -ray diffraction of
shaking table concentrate showed that it contains
ilmenite, cassiterite, hematite, and zircon respectively.
Meanwhile the X-ray diffraction of the non magnetic
concentrate showed that it involves cassiterite, with
little content of zircon.
84.9646

the cleaning of shaking table concentrate using dry 82.8047

high intensity magnetic separation. It represents the 80.6448
recovery of cassiterite in non magnetic fraction at
R e co ve ry %

78.4849
different values of the studied factors. In figure 5a it
is noticed that with increasing both splitter 76.325

inclination and belt speed the recovery value

increases and reaches its maximum value about 97%
at splitter inclination 78.48 degree and belt speed
71.29 rpm. On the other hand increasing both 3.00
splitter inclination and belt speed more than 78.48 2.75
5.00

degree and 71.29 rpm respectively leads to a very 4.50

slight decrease in the recovery value. In figure 5b it is 2.50

4.00
noticed that with increasing both splitter inclination Stroke length (cm) 2.25 3.50
Inclination angle (degree)
and belt speed the recovery value increases and 2.00 3.00
reaches to the maximum value which is 98 % at
splitter inclination 78.62 degree and belt speed 73.89
rpm. On the other hand increasing splitter inclination Figure 5a. Response surfaces for the shaking table
concentrate recovery as a function of different factors
and belt speed more than 78.62 degree and 73.89 (water flow rate 20 l/min and feed rate 250gm/min.)
rpm respectively lead to a very slight decrease in the
recovery value.

3.6. Optimization of the Experimental

Parameters
Figure 7 (a & b) shows the optimum parameters that
give both maximum recovery and grade for shaking
table separation and dry high intensity magnetic.
M. A. Youssef, M.K. Abd El-Rahman, N.H. Helal, M. M. El- Rabiei, S. R. Elsaidy / The Journal of ORE DRESSING ® 2009 7

3.00
Desirability
0.295 0.417
0.417 0.540
85.9647 0.540

84.4923

83.0198 2.75
Recovery %

81.5474

Stroke length (cm)

80.075

Predicti 0.91
2.50

25.00
400.00
22.50
325.00
2.25 0.786
20.00
250.00
water flow rate (l/min) 17.50 175.00
Feed rate (gm/min) 0.540
15.00 100.00 0.540
0.663
0.417
Figure 5b. Response surfaces for the shaking table 2.00

concentrate recovery as a function of different factors 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00

(inclination angle 4 degree and stroke length 2.5 cm)

Inclination angle (degree)

(a)
97.212
100.00
Desirability
94.0903 0.381
0.381
90.9685
Recovery %

87.8468
87.50
0.536
84.725
0.536
Belt speed (rpm)

0.690 0.690
75.00
Predicti 1.00
100.00
80.00
87.50
77.50
75.00
75.00 62.50
Belt speed (rpm) 62.50 72.50
Splitter inclination (degree)
50.00 70.00

50.00
Figure 6a. Response surfaces for the dry magnetic 70.00 72.50 75.00 77.50 80.00
separation concentrate recovery as a function of (feed
rate 500gm/min.) Splitter inclination (degree)

(b)
Figure 7. Optimum parameters for shaking table and
98.2563 dry high ıntensity magnetic separation
95.1641

92.0719 Table 9. Optimum parameters for both shaking table

and dry high ıntensity magnetic separation
Recovery %

88.9797

Dry High Intensity Magnetic

85.8875
Shaking Table Separation
Separation
Inclination Splitter 74.95
α angle 4.13 ε inclination
100.00 (degree) (degree)
80.00
Stroke Belt speed 73
β length (cm) 2.50 δ
87.50
77.50
75.00
75.00
(rpm)
Feed rate Feed rate 742
Belt speed (rpm) 62.50 72.50
Splitter inclination (degree) γ (gm/min)
307.6 ϕ
(gm/min)
50.00 70.00
Water flow
λ 24.22
Figure 6. Response surfaces for the dry magnetic rate (l/min)
separation concentrate recovery as a function of (feed
rate 750gm/min)
8 Volume 11 - Issue 22

Table 10. Shaking table and dry high ıntensity magnetic separation cassiterite concentrates at optimum
parameters
Shaking Table Separation
Fraction Weight % SnO2 % Recovery %
Concentrate 0.314 13.2 86.2
tail 99.686 0.0066 13.8
Total 100 0.048 100

Cleaning of Shaking Table Concentrate using Dry High Intensity Magnetic Separation
Fraction Weight % SnO2 % Recovery %
Operational Overall Operational Overall
Non magnetic 14.5 0.046 90.67 96.7 83.36
Magnetic 85.5 0.268 0.51 3.3 2.84
Total 100 0.314 13.2 100 86.20

Figure 8. X-ray diffraction for the shaking table concentrate

Figure 9. X-ray diffraction for the non magnetic concentrate

was successfully achieved. A statistical design using

4. CONCLUSIONS
the Box-Behnken design of experiments was
conducted on both shaking table separation and dry
Recovery of cassiterite from Igla Placer ore of
magnetic separation experiments to investigate the
Eastern Desert of Egypt using shaking table gravity
effect of main combination parameters. A
separation and high intensity dry magnetic separation
mathematical model for calculation of recovery and
 M. A. Youssef, M.K. Abd El-Rahman, N.H. Helal, M. M. El- Rabiei, S. R. Elsaidy / The Journal of ORE DRESSING ® 2009
grade for both shaking table and dry magnetic
separation is suggested according to the statistical
experimental design. The best combination desirable
experimental conditions obtained in case of shaking
table separation are inclination angle (4.13 degree),
Stroke length (2.5 cm), feed rate (307.6 gm/min), and
water flow rate (24.22 l/min) and in case of using dry
high intensity magnetic separation are splitter
inclination (74.9 degree), belt speed (73 rpm), and
feed rate (742 gm/min). A shaking table concentrate
containing 13.2 % SnO2 and recovery of 86.2 % by
weight SnO2 was obtained from a feed containing
about 0.061 % SnO2 at the best desirable condition
obtained. Cleaning of this concentrate by using dry
high intensity magnetic separation a final concentrate
with 90.67% SnO2 and recovery of 96.7% SnO2 by
weight was obtained.
REFERENCES
[1] A. F. Holleman, E. Wiberg, Inorganic
Chemistry, San Diego: Academic Press, (2001).
[2] Joseph Watson, The stannic oxide
semiconductor gas sensor in The Electrical
engineering Handbook 3d Edition; Sensors
Nanoscience Biomedical Engineering and
Instruments ed R.C Dorf CRC Press Taylor
and Francis, (2006).
[3] Wang, Chun-Ming; Wang, Jin-Feng; Su, Wen-
Bin, Microstructural morphology and electrical
properties of copper- and niobium-doped tin
dioxide polycrystalline varistors, Journal of the
American Ceramic Society 89 (2006) 2502.
[4] A. Dibb, M. Cilense, P.R. Bueno, Y. Maniette,
J.A. Varela, and E. Longo, Evaluation of rare
earth oxides doping SnO2.(Co0.25,Mn0.75)O-
based varistor System, Materials Research, 9
(2006) 339.
[5] J.F., Jr. Carlin, Tin recycling in the United
States in 1998, U.S.Geological Survey, circular
1196 (2003)1.
(http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS50041).
[6] R.G. Taylor, Geology of tin deposits, in
Developments in economic geology, no.11:
New York, NY, Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, (1979) 543.
[7] C.S. Hutchison, Economic deposits and their
tectonic setting. London, The Macmillan Press,
(1983)365.
[8] K.F.G. Hosking, Mineral concentrations and
hydrocarbon accumulations in the ESCAP
region, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 3 (1988)18.
[9] W.D. Menzie, B.L. Reed, and D.A. Singer,
Mineral concentrations and hydrocarbon
View publication stats
9
accumulations in the ESCAP region, Berlin,
Springer-Verlag, 3 (1988) 718.
[10] B.L. Reed, Tin resources. In: Carr, D.D. and
Herz, N. eds, Concise encyclopedia of mineral
resources, Oxford, Pergamon Press., (1989)
426.
[11] C.L. Sainsbury, Tin resources of the world, U.S.
Geological Survey, Bulletin 1301 (1969) 1.
[12] J.F., Jr. Carlin, Tin, U.S. Geological Survey,
Mineral Commodity Summaries, (2008) 176.
[13] L.M. Falcon, The gravity recovery of cassiterite,
Journal of the South African institute of mining
and metallurgy, 82 (1982)112.
[14] A. Gupta and D.S. Yan, Mineral processing
design and operation, Gravity separation,
(2006) 494.
[15] Inc. Carpco, Expanding leadership in
separation technology, Bulletin No. 929 (1992).
[16] Barry A Wills’ and Tim Napier-Munn, Wills'
Mineral processing technology (Seventh
Edition), Gravity concentration, (2005) 225.
[17] H. C. Voges, Heavy-medium and gravity
separation at Iscor's tin-ore and iron-ore mines,
Journal of the South African institute of mining
and metallurgy, 82 (1982)186.
[18] A. D. Read, A. Whitehead and T. J. N.
Grainger-Allen, Pre-treatment of feed for dry
magnetic separation of fine materials,
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 3
(1976) 343.
[19] R.O. Burt, International Journal of Mineral
Processing, 2 (1975) 219.
[20] M.S. Amin, A tin-tungsten deposits in Egypt,
Econ. Geol., 42 (1947) 637.
[21] Report of the Egyptian mineral resources
authority, Investment chance in Egyptian
mining sector, (2007).
[22] A.H. Sabet, V.B. Tsogoev, S.P. Shibanin, M.B.
El kait, and S. Awad, The placer tin deposits of
Abu dabbab, Igla, and Nuweibi, Annals of the
Geological Survey of Egypt, 6 (1976)169.
[23] G.E.P. Box, D.W. Behnken, Some new three
level designs for the study of quantitative
variables, Technometrics, 2 (1960) 455.