International Journal of Mineral Processing 155 (2016) 6–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mineral Processing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijminpro

Understanding the effect of mineralogy on muscovite flotation

using QEMSCAN
A. Jordens a,⁎, C. Marion a, T. Grammatikopoulos b, K.E. Waters a
a
Department of Mining and Materials Engineering, McGill University, 3610 University, Montreal, QC H3A 0C5, Canada
b
SGS Canada Inc., 185 Concession Street, PO 4300, Lakefield, ON K0L 2H0, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Muscovite mica is an industrial mineral used in many different applications including coatings, construction ma-
Received 17 November 2015 terials and polymers. This mineral is commonly beneficiated using froth flotation, especially when treating finer
Received in revised form 15 June 2016 particle sizes. A common flotation scheme employs a cationic amine collector for mica, at alkaline pH, with a de-
Accepted 8 August 2016
pressant added to depress some of the common gangue minerals in muscovite deposits such as quartz and feld-
Available online 09 August 2016
spars. This work examines the effects of Custamine 8113 (collector) and Norlig-H (depressant) on the flotation of
Keywords:
a muscovite ore from a mineralogical perspective using QEMSCAN. In addition to traditional grade-recovery
Mineralogy curves for the various mineral components of the ore, the QEMSCAN data are used to look at: size-by-size flota-
Muscovite tion recoveries, particle size differences between flotation concentrates and tailings, and mineral liberation and
QEMSCAN association. The lab-scale flotation results are then compared to idealized size-by-size grade-recovery curves cal-
Flotation culated from the measured QEMSCAN data.
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Muscovite mica is an industrial mineral used for many different ap-
plications such as coatings, construction materials and polymers. A
common beneficiation route for relatively fine-grained muscovite de-
posits is through froth flotation. One flotation method is to employ cat-
ionic amine-based collectors to target the muscovite surface at alkaline
pH with the addition of depressants to depress gangue silicates such as
quartz and feldspars.
The use of advanced mineralogical characterisation has increasingly
been used to investigate mineral beneficiation processes including grav-
ity separation (Pascoe et al., 2007); magnetic processing of iron ore
(Lund et al., 2015), sulphide flotation (Becker et al., 2009; Lotter et al.,
2011; Lotter et al., 2003); coarse particle flotation (Fosu et al., 2015a;
Fosu et al., 2015b); and the effect of particle shape on the flash flotation
and gravity separation of gold ore (McGrath et al., 2015). The analysis of
individual particles based on their size, shape, composition, association
and liberation can provide details to the effectiveness of separation pro-
cesses and highlight potential areas in need of improvement.
The output from automated mineralogical techniques typically con-
sists of pixel-by-pixel compositional (both mineralogical and chemical)
data. These data are commonly used to produce mineralogical and
chemical assays for a given sample as well as determine particle sizes
and grain sizes of different minerals. However, this information may be
additionally processed to sort particles based on mineral associations
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: adam.jordens@mail.mcgill.ca (A. Jordens).
(which minerals are found within the same particle) and liberation
parameters (defined as the amount of a particle's surface identified as
the mineral of interest). The liberation attribute may also be considered
as the percentage of the exposed particle surface that is the mineral of in-
terest, and therefore, it may be assumed to be available for surface based
separation techniques such as flotation. Finally, the shape factors of indi-
vidual particles may be calculated as well although work by McGrath et
al. (2015) showed that the extrapolation of two dimensional shape
factors to the actual three dimensional particle shape can be quite chal-
lenging. From the pixel-by-pixel compositional data and the measured
particle size/shapes, secondary properties of particle properties such as
density (Pascoe et al., 2007) or locking ratio (Fosu et al., 2015b) may
be calculated to give additional information on the behaviour of these
particles through separation processes. The particle locking ratio as pro-
posed by Fosu et al. (2015b) is shown in Eq. (1). It provides an indication
as to the complexity of mineral texture within a particle [i.e. whether in a
given particle there are few relatively large mineral grains (low locking
ratio) or whether the mineral of interest is interspersed as multiple
small mineral grains within a single particle (high locking ratio)].
2
ð%of mineral in total particle areaÞ  ðparticle sizeÞ
Locking Ratio ¼ 2
100  ðmineral grain sizeÞ
ð1Þ
This work analyses the products of flotation experiments carried out
on a muscovite ore containing quartz and feldspar as the major gangue
minerals. The products (concentrates and tailings) of different flotation

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.minpro.2016.08.003
0301-7516/© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 A. Jordens et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 155 (2016) 6–12 7

a P80 of 106 μm (Fig. 1). The cell used was a 3 L Denver flotation cell with
several concentrates collected over a period of 5 min and then com-
bined for analysis. The collector used in this work was a commercial
amine (Custamine 8113, ArrMaz) and the depressant used was a com-
mercial lignin sulfonate (Norlig-H, LignoTech). The specific details of
the flotation experiments may be seen in a previous publication investi-
gating the effects of these reagents on muscovite, quartz and feldspar
minerals (Marion et al., 2015). The three flotation conditions examined
here are: high collector addition with depressant (500 g/t Custamine
8113, 1500 g/t Norlig-H), high collector addition with no depressant
(500 g/t Custamine 8113, no Norlig-H), and low collector addition
with depressant (250 g/t Custamine 8113, 1500 g/t Norlig-H). All flota-
tion tests were carried out at pH 8.

Fig. 1. Particle size distribution of muscovite ore feed to flotation. 2.2. QEMSCAN analysis

tests were analysed with QEMSCAN (quantitative evaluation of mate-
rials by scanning electron microscopy) to determine particle and miner-
al grain sizes, mineral deportment, mineral associations and degrees of
surface exposure. This information is then used, along with previously
reported surface chemistry investigations, to develop an improved un-
derstanding of the interaction of the studied flotation reagents with
the major minerals present in the ore.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Flotation experiments
Lab-scale flotation tests were conducted on a muscovite ore
(9.1 wt.% muscovite) from an industrial mine to determine the effect
of varying concentrations of collector and depressant. The feed was
wet ground in a laboratory rod mill at 50% solids for 22.5 min to produce
Samples analysed with QEMSCAN included the feed, concentrates
and tailings from each different flotation condition. All samples were
wet screened at 38 μm and 75 μm to produce three different size frac-
tions (−38 μm, +38–75 μm and +75 μm) from each sample. Each of
these sized samples was micro-riffled to produce a representative sub-
sample to be analysed by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and then mounted
and polished for QEMSCAN analysis. Graphite was used in the prepara-
tion of the QEMSCAN mounts in order to disperse particles, create ran-
dom particle orientation and to minimize settling and segregation due
to different mineral specific gravities. Samples were mounted into
5 mm of epoxy and then back-filled with additional epoxy. This was
undertaken to minimize any gravity separation during the epoxy hard-
ening. Once hardened, the epoxy mounts were polished and carbon-
coated prior to QEMSCAN analysis.
The QEMSCAN analysis was carried out at the Advanced Mineralogy
Facility at SGS Canada (Lakefield, Canada) using an EVO 430 automated

Combined Concentrates +75 µm

100 100
a) b)
Grade (%)

10 10

HC - Q HC+D - Q LC+D - Q Quartz

HC - F HC+D - F LC+D - F Feldspar
HC - M HC+D - M LC+D - M Muscovite
1 1
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

-75 µm / +38 µm -38 µm

100 100
c) d)
Grade (%)

10 10

1 1
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

Recovery (%) Recovery (%)

Fig. 2. Grade-recovery results of flotation experiments with high collector dosage and depressant (HC + D), high collector dosage (HC) and low collector dosage and depressant (LC + D).
These results are shown for the three major minerals in the deposit (muscovite, quartz and feldspar) with dashed/solid lines on each figure representing the feed grades of each mineral.
The results are shown for: a) combined concentrates; b) +75 μm size fraction; c) 38–75 μm size fraction; d) −38 μm size fraction.
8 A. Jordens et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 155 (2016) 6–12

60 60

d50 Grain Size (µm)

a) b)
50 50 Concentrate
40 40 Tailings
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Quartz/Feldspars Micas Other Silicates Quartz/Feldspars Micas Other Silicates

Fig. 3. Grain size of major minerals in the muscovite ore for: a) flotation feed and b) flotation products.

scanning electron microscope instrument equipped with light-element
energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometers. The resulting data was proc-
essed using iDiscover software. The QEMSCAN method used was the
Particle Mineral Analysis method in which a two-dimensional mapping
analysis is conducted to resolve the liberation characteristics of a set of
particles. In this analysis particle mapping was done at a pixel size of
3 μm for a pre-defined number of particles. The instrument was operat-
ed at an accelerating voltage of 25 kV and a beam current of 5 nA.
In order to positively identify minerals from QEMSCAN measurements
and then assign correct chemical compositions to these minerals, a refer-
ence mineral list must first be established for the mineral system in ques-
tion. In this work this mineral list was determined via X-ray diffraction
measurements (to define the major minerals), and electron probe micro
analysis. The resultant assays calculated from the QEMSCAN data were
validated against chemical compositions determined from XRF.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Flotation product mineralogy
The grade and recovery results from the different flotation condi-
tions investigated are illustrated in Fig. 2. The results are reported by
mineral and by particle size. It can be seen from the overall results in
Fig. 2a that the addition of depressant greatly reduces the recovery of
quartz and feldspars without significantly affecting muscovite recovery.
The grade of the flotation concentrate produced without the use of de-
pressants (HC) shows minimal selectivity for muscovite relative to
quartz and feldspar, indicating that elevated dosages of the amine-
based collector result in significant gangue recovery. The grade-recov-
ery results for different size fractions (Fig. 2b–d) show that the selective
flotation of muscovite from quartz and feldspar is much more readily
achieved at coarser particle sizes while the finest size fraction
(− 38 μm) shows a significant amount of gangue recovery even with
the addition of depressant. This is likely attributable to non-selective en-
trainment of fine particles into the froth zone. It is also interesting to
note in Fig. 2c that there is a significant difference in the rejection of
quartz and feldspars in the intermediate size range (38–75 μm). This
may be due to differences in reagent interactions on the feldspar and
quartz surfaces or differences in the mineral associations of the two
gangue minerals.
The particle size (d50) of the major minerals in the muscovite ore flo-
tation feed may be seen in Fig. 3a. Muscovite has a smaller grain size
than quartz and feldspars. However, the grain sizes from the flotation
products (Fig. 3b) indicate that the gangue minerals reporting to the

Binary Binary
Free Liberated Feldspar-Mica Feldspar-Quartz

*All scale bars represent 100 µm Background Muscovite

Quartz Other
Feldspar

Fig. 4. Examples of classification according to mineral association for particles in the flotation concentrate containing feldspar.
 A. Jordens et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 155 (2016) 6–12 9

100
a) surface identified as the given mineral and “Liberated” refers to particles
with N 80% of their surface identified as the given mineral. The break-
80
down of mineral flotation recovery by mineral association aids in deter-
Recovery (%)

mining the effectiveness of reagents on different minerals. The recovery

60 of free and liberated particles of both feldspar and quartz in Fig. 5 indi-
cates that the introduction of the depressant Norlig-H has the most pro-
40 nounced effect on decreasing the recovery of these gangue minerals
when they are the major constituent of the particle, especially at particle
20 sizes coarser than 38 μm. The recovery of free and liberated fine
(b38 μm) gangue particles is more significantly affected by the reduc-
0 tion of collector dosage. This result is relatively intuitive as the commer-
10 100 cial Custamine collector likely has frother-like components mixed in
Particle Size (µm)
with the amine. A reduction in this collector's dosage most likely re-
HC - Free HC+D - Free LC+D - Free
duces the bubble surface area flux within the cell which in turn would
HC - Liberated HC+D - Liberated LC+D - Liberated
be expected to reduce water recovery and therefore entrainment
HC - Binary Muscovite HC+D - Binary Muscovite LC+D - Binary Muscovite
(Zhang et al., 2010).
100 The situation when the particles are mixtures of different minerals is
b) a great deal more complicated. Nevertheless it might be expected that
80
particles which are binary mixtures of gangue mineral with muscovite
(“binary muscovite”) would be collected into the froth zone as surface
Recovery (%)

60
40
20
0 that there is an effect of different mineral textures between binary par-
10
Particle Size (µm)
Fig. 5. Flotation recoveries by size for different mineral association classes with respect to
a) quartz and b) feldspar. Flotation recoveries are presented for three different flotation
reagent conditions: high collector (HC), high collector and depressant (HC + D), and
low collector and depressant (LC + D).
flotation concentrate are significantly finer than those remaining in the
flotation pulp. This supports the explanation from Fig. 2 that high
gangue recoveries in finer size fractions are in fact due to entrainment.
chemistry and single mineral flotation results have shown that musco-
vite has limited interaction with Norlig-H (Marion et al., 2015). Interest-
ingly, the results shown in Fig. 5 for quartz and very coarse feldspar
(+ 75 μm) agree well with this assumption; but finer feldspar size
ranges (Fig. 5b) do not. There must therefore be an interaction between
the depressant adsorbed onto feldspar surfaces and the collector
adsorbed onto muscovite surfaces for these particles. It is also possible
100
ticles of muscovite and quartz and muscovite and feldspars.
In order to assess the possible effect of mineral texture on the flota-
tion of binary particles, the respective particle images for the size frac-
tions of interest (concentrates and tailings) were examined for any
textural differences. While there are no significant textural differences
observed in this system, the grouping of binary mineral particles into
a single subset likely masks the effect of varying degrees of surface ex-
posure of the value mineral (i.e. muscovite) as discussed below.
3.3. Mineral surface exposure

3.2. Mineral associations As flotation is a surface-based separation technique, it is important

Mineral particles reporting to the concentrate and containing feld-
spar and quartz were classified according to their liberation and associ-
ation into four distinct categories shown visually in Fig. 4 for feldspar.
Mineral particle flotation recoveries sorted by mineral association are
shown in Fig. 5 where “Free” refers to particles with N95% of their
to also class particles based on differences in particle surfaces (i.e. the
minerals found at the surface). This is often done by classing minerals
based on the percentage of the particle surface that is the mineral of in-
terest (here referred to as mineral surface exposure). This type of classi-
fication is illustrated visually in Fig. 6 for muscovite surface exposure.
The flotation recovery of feldspar, quartz and muscovite as a function

> 80% 60 - 80 % 40 - 60 % 20 - 40 % < 20 %

*All scale bars represent 100 µm Background Feldspar Other

Quartz Muscovite

Fig. 6. Mineral particles containing varying degrees of muscovite surface exposure.

10 A. Jordens et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 155 (2016) 6–12

of surface exposure is shown in Fig. 7. In order to identify differences in
cumulative recoveries of fine (b38 μm) particles with lower surface ex-
posure the % change in cumulative recovery was calculated using the
N80% surface flotation recovery as a baseline. The baseline recovery
values are listed in each figure for the three different flotation condi-
tions. The results in Fig. 7a–c show that there is very little flotation of
particles with minimal quartz exposure (likely due to the fact that
quartz in the flotation feed is very well liberated). Similarly there is little
difference in feldspar recovery between the different flotation condi-
tions at low levels of feldspar surface exposure. However, the muscovite
flotation recovery data in Fig. 7c indicates that there is a significant ef-
fect of both the addition of depressant and the decrease in collector dos-
age. This change in recovery of very fine particles with only a portion of
their surface as muscovite provides additional insight into the best
means of controlling entrainment in this system. It appears once again
that decreasing the collector dosage has the greatest effect on minimiz-
ing non-selective entrainment of fine particles.
The absolute recovery of muscovite particles sorted by mineral sur-
face exposure and particle size is shown in Fig. 7d–f. The data for coarser
particle sizes (N 38 μm) shows an exponentially decreasing relationship
of muscovite flotation recovery as mineral surface exposure decreases.
This is intuitive as the collector in this system is added to preferentially
target muscovite surfaces. Thus, a decrease in available muscovite sur-
face should result in a decrease in flotation recovery. A comparison of
the results of different reagent additions indicates that the introduction
of the depressant for these particle sizes has a marked impact on shifting
the entire flotation recovery curve downwards whereas the change in
collector concentration has a minor effect. Considering the flotation re-
covery of fine (b38 μm) particles from Fig. 7, one can observe that flota-
tion recovery is reduced to a lesser extent as muscovite surface
exposure decreases, relative to coarser particle sizes. This supports the
previous explanation that a major contributing factor to fine particle re-
covery in this system is non-selective entrainment (Trahar, 1981). Addi-
tionally, the recoveries detailed in this figure show that the reduction in

25 100
% Change in Cumulative Recovery

a) Quartz
d)
90 Muscovite +75
20 80

Recovery (%)
70
Init. Rec (%)
15 60
HC 86.38
HC+D 67.96 50
LC+D 34.74
10 40
30
5 20
10
0 0
>= 80 60-80 40-60 20-40 0-20 >= 80 60-80 40-60 20-40 0-20
HC -38 µm HC+D -38 µm LC+D -38 µm HC HC+D LC+D
25 100
% Change in Cumulative Recovery

b) e)
Feldspar 90 Muscovite +75/-38
20 80
70
Recovery (%)

Init. Rec (%)

15 HC 86.07 60
HC+D 67.38 50
LC+D 34.41
10 40
30
5 20
10
0 0
>= 80 60-80 40-60 20-40 0-20 >= 80 60-80 40-60 20-40 0-20
25
% Change in Cumulative Recovery

100
c) Muscovite f)
90 Muscovite -38
20 80
70
Recovery (%)

Init. Rec (%)

15 HC 90.80 60
HC+D 79.34
LC+D 47.95
50
10 40
30
5 20
10
0 0
>= 80 60-80 40-60 20-40 0-20 >= 80 60-80 40-60 20-40 0-20
Mineral Surface Exposure (%) Mineral Surface Exposure (%)

Fig. 7. Flotation recoveries as a function of mineral surface exposure. The figures on the left (a–c) represent the % change in cumulative recovery of fine (b38 μm) particles for: a) quartz; b)
feldspar; and c) muscovite. The figures on the right (d–f) represent the absolute recovery of muscovite in the: d) +75 μm size range; e) 38–75 μm size range; and f) −38 μm size range.
Dashed lines (d–f) represent exponential trend lines.
 A. Jordens et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 155 (2016) 6–12 11

100 100
a) b)
95 95

Recovery (%)
90 90

85 85

80 80
+75 µm HC +75 µm
75 HC HC HC+D HC+D 75 -75/+38 µm HC -75/+38 µm
LC+D LC+D Feed -38 µm HC -38 µm
70 70
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

100 100
c) d)
95 95
Recovery (%)

90 90

85 85

80 80
+75 µm LC+D +75 µm
+75 µm HC+D +75 µm
75 75 -75/+38 µm LC+D -75/+38 µm
-75/+38 µm HC+D -75/+38 µm -38 µm LC+D -38 µm
70 70
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Grade (%) Grade (%)

Fig. 8. Grade-recovery results of muscovite flotation compared to calculated ideal grade-recovery curves for: a) combined concentrates; b) high collector addition; c) high collector
addition with depressant; and d) low collector addition with depressant.

collector dosage has a much more significant effect on reducing the re-
covery of fine particles, even those whose surface is predominantly
muscovite. This finding is consistent with conclusions from Figs. 2 and
5, although it is significant to note that reducing the collector dosage re-
duces the flotation of all fine particles containing muscovite, as well as
the recovery of gangue particles (Fig. 2d). This suggests that much of
the recovery of b38 μm particles in this system is broadly non-selective,
as surface chemistry and single mineral flotation results suggest that the
amine collector adsorbs preferentially onto the muscovite surface in this
system.
curve but the flotation of finer size fractions, especially the − 38 μm
size fraction, could still be improved.
4. Conclusions
This work examined the products of muscovite ore flotation experi-
ments from a mineralogical perspective using the output of automated
mineralogical analysis (QEMSCAN) to consider flotation recoveries
based on mineral associations and the minerals present at particle sur-
faces. The conclusions are as follows:

3.4. Ideal grade-recovery curves
Building on the sorting of particles based on mineral surface expo-
sure discussed in the previous section it is possible to calculate an ideal-
ized grade-recovery curve from QEMSCAN data. The implicit
assumption inherent in this calculation is that the first particles recov-
ered in flotation will be the particles with the highest degree of musco-
vite surface exposure, followed by the next highest degree of muscovite
exposure and accumulating in this manner until all particles containing
muscovite have been recovered. The grade-recovery results for musco-
vite that were presented in Fig. 2 are reproduced in Fig. 8 along with
their respective idealized grade-recovery curves. The idealized grade-
recovery curve is back-calculated for each condition due to difficulties
in the perfect representative splitting of the muscovite ore. The ideal-
ized grade-recovery curve from a separate feed sample is also shown
in Fig. 8a indicating that the back-calculated idealized grade-recovery
curves correspond well with that calculated from the feed. Fig. 8a also
illustrates that the combination of depressant addition and reduction
in collector dosage acts to greatly improve the grade of the flotation con-
centrate without a significant reduction in recovery. The addition of col-
lector alone (Fig. 8b) recovers almost all the muscovite but with a very
low resultant concentrate grade. The introduction of depressant (Fig.
8c) greatly improves the grade of the coarsest size fraction and the re-
duction in collector addition (Fig. 8d) further improves the grade of
the coarsest size fractions. In fact, the + 75 μm size fraction in Fig. 8d
is very close to the optimum “shoulder” of the ideal grade-recovery
• The flotation of the muscovite ore with the examined flotation re-
agents is very close to the optimum calculated grade-recovery curve
for the coarsest size fraction
• The addition of the depressant appears to have the most significant
impact on rejecting coarse, well-liberated gangue particles
• The flotation recovery of coarse binary particles of muscovite and feld-
spar is significantly lower than expected. However, a visual examina-
tion of these particles showed no textural difference relative to binary
particles of muscovite and quartz
• The recovery of fine (b38 μm) particles in this system appears to be
driven primarily by non-selective recovery (likely entrainment). The
most effective control for this entrainment is the reduction in collector
dosage. This is speculated to be due to the presence of frother-like ad-
ditives in the commercial amine-based collector investigated.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge funding from the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) (RGPIN
387318-10) Discovery Grant: Mineral Processing Fundamentals. A.
Jordens acknowledges funding from the McGill Engineering Doctoral
Award as well as an NSERC Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate
Scholarship and C. Marion acknowledges funding from an NSERC Cana-
da Graduate Scholarship. SGS Canada is gratefully acknowledged for the
QEMSCAN analysis.
12 A. Jordens et al. / International Journal of Mineral Processing 155 (2016) 6–12
References
Becker, M., Harris, P.J., Wiese, J.G., Bradshaw, D.J., 2009. Mineralogical characterisation of
naturally floatable gangue in Merensky Reef ore flotation. Int. J. Miner. Process. 93,
246–255.
Fosu, S., Awatey, B., Skinner, W., Zanin, M., 2015a. Flotation of coarse composite particles
in mechanical cell vs. the fluidised-bed separator (the HydroFloat™). Miner. Eng. 77,
137–149.
Fosu, S., Pring, A., Skinner, W., Zanin, M., 2015b. Characterisation of coarse composite
sphalerite particles with respect to flotation. Miner. Eng. 71, 105–112.
Lotter, N.O., Kowal, D.I., Tuzun, M.A., Whittaker, P.J., Kormos, L., 2003. Sampling and flota-
tion testing of Sudbury Basin drill core for process mineralogy modelling. Miner. Eng.
16, 857–864.
Lotter, N.O., Kormos, L.J., Oliveira, J., Fragomeni, D., Whiteman, E., 2011. Modern process
mineralogy: two case studies. Miner. Eng. 24, 638–650.
Lund, C., Lamberg, P., Lindberg, T., 2015. Development of a geometallurgical framework to
quantify mineral textures for process prediction. Miner. Eng. 82, 61–77.
Marion, C., Jordens, A., McCarthy, S., Grammatikopoulos, T., Waters, K.E., 2015. An inves-
tigation into the flotation of muscovite with an amine collector and calcium lignin
sulfonate depressant. Sep. Purif. Technol. 149, 216–227.
McGrath, T.D.H., O'Connor, L., Eksteen, J.J., 2015. A comparison of 2D and 3D shape
characterisations of free gold particles in gravity and flash flotation concentrates.
Miner. Eng. 82, 45–53.
Pascoe, R.D., Power, M.R., Simpson, B., 2007. QEMSCAN analysis as a tool for improved un-
derstanding of gravity separator performance. Miner. Eng. 20, 487–495.
Trahar, W.J., 1981. A rational interpretation of the role of particle size in flotation. Int.
J. Miner. Process. 8 (4), 289–327.
Zhang, W., Nesset, J.E., Finch, J.A., 2010. Water recovery and bubble surface area flux in
flotation. Can. Metall. Q. 49 (4), 353–362.