Lead and Zinc Recovery
Overview
Lead Removal via Soil Washing
and Leaching
H.K. Lin, X.D. Man, and D.E. Walsh
A soil washing and leaching process was
tested for removing lead from soils. A soil-
washing circuit, including size and gravity
separations, was employed to remove the
coarse metallic lead particles, while the leach-
ing was applied to remove fine metallic lead
particles and other lead species. The soil-
washing tests proved that the metallic lead
particles larger than 0.15 mm (100 mesh)
could be effectively removed. The sodium-
chloride-based leaching solution with ferric
chloride or sodium hypochlorite as oxidants
was adopted in the leaching. The leaching
experimental results indicated that under
the pH of 2 and Eh of 1,300 mV, the metallic
lead particles smaller than 0.15 mm and
other lead species can be dissolved in the
leaching solution within 60 minutes.
INTRODUCTION
Lead pollution poses a health threat in
many developed and developing coun-
tries, especially to children.1 Based on
the statistics of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), lead and other
heavy-metal contamination can be found
at about 50% of that agency’s National
Priority List (NPL) sites—U.S. locations
with pollution that is potentially haz-
ardous to human health and the envi-
ronment.2–4 A similar percentage holds
for the EPA’s 2000 Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act (RCRA), which
authorizes the clean-up of hazardous
waste sites. In addition, half of the 7,000
contaminated U.S. Department of De-
fense sites involve lead. Normally, in
typical uncontaminated soils, the lead
level ranges from 10 to 100 mg/kg, but in
the lead-contaminated soils collected
from 436 Superfund sites, the lead level
has reached up to 366,000 mg/kg.2 Cur-
rent technologies for treating lead-con-
taminated soils mainly include solidifi-
cation/stabilization, vitrification, cap-
0.1
0.0
Pb2+ PbCl+
PbCl3–
PbCl2
Eh (V)
–0.1
–0.2 Pb
–0.3
–5.0 –4.0 –3.0 –2.0 –1.0 0 1.0 2.0
log ([C1–], M)
Figure 1. An Eh-Log[Cl–] diagram of Pb-[Cl–]-
H2O.
22
ping, secondary smelting, and soil wash-
ing. Solidification/stabilization, vitrifi-
cation, and capping have several inher-
ent disadvantages5,6 because they can-
not completely remove hazardous con-
taminants, but can only stabilize them in
the contaminated medium.
Secondary smelting and soil washing
are more complete methods currently
adopted in cleaning lead-contaminated
soils, and, at the same time, trying to
reclaim the lead. Due to its high energy
requirement, the overall cost of the sec-
ondary smelting process could be too
high8–10 to be economical for large site
cleanup projects. Soil washing is basi-
cally a size/classification volume-reduc-
tion process. It consists of slurrying the
soil with water and physically concen-
trating the contaminants into a size frac-
tion of the original soil volume. The con-
centrated soil is usually shipped to sec-
ondary lead smelters. Unfortunately, the
lead at some sites has proven to be rela-
tively evenly distributed throughout the
soil, thus making the soil less amenable
to soil washing. Another drawback of
this process is that, even in a very suc-
cessful demonstration,11 the process re-
Water
Soil 40,000 g
Pb Conc. 750 mg/kg
▼ Pb 30 g Trommet
▼▼
▼
Hopper Slurry
▼
Conveyer
Feeder Tank
Undersize
24,000 g
Pump
▼
Jig
Elutriator
2–
PbCl4
▼ Cone
Soil 2725 g
Pb Conc. 8624 mg/kg
Pb 23.5 g
Water
▼
Sump/Pump
Figure 2. The soil-washing test for soil sample #1.
turns only 70% of the original contami-
nated soil back to its site, while the other
30% of the concentrated soil must be
shipped to secondary smelters.
Several potential methods have been
tested for remediating surrogate or real
soils. Metal-ion leaching or electrokinetic
remediation were reported to be effec-
tive for removing absorbed lead ions
from contaminated soil.12–14 More re-
cently, Li and Li15 developed an enhanced
electrokinetic remediation with continu-
ous rinsing near the cathodic region.
This process more effectively removed
lead from a carbonate-rich illitic soil.
Several extractants were reported to be
effective in removing lead from con-
taminated soils.16–18
The soil washing and leaching pro-
cess, which could clean the soil effec-
tively and be operated at relatively low
cost, was tested and reported in this
paper. This process combined gravity-
separation technology (soil washing)
with leaching of specific soil fractions.
THERMODYNAMICS
The thermodynamics of the lead dis-
solution process were investigated to
Oversize 16,000 g
Pb Conc. 87.5 ppm
▼
Pb 1.4 g
Cleaned Soil
Stockpile
To Leaching Circuit
▼
Belt
Filter Soil 1,960 g
Pb Conc. 2,300 mg/kg
▼ Pb 4.5 g
Dewater ▼
Water
to Water Sump
▼
▼ Soil 18,000g
Cleaned Soil pb Conc. 117 mg/kg
Stockpile Pb 2.12 g
Water
JOM • December 2001
 ▲ Rinse (Water) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Oxidants/Acid
Soils From
Washing Circuit Slurry Lime Metallic Lead Leaching

▲
▲
Soil 1,960 g
20% by wt. Cleaned Soil Cake In preliminary leaching tests in chlo-

▲
▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲
Pb Conc. 2,300 mg/kg 1st Drum ride solution, metallic lead showed
Pb 4.5 g Filter ▲
slower leaching kinetics compared to
Soil 1,960 g
Pb Conc. 83.8 mg/kg other common lead species (i.e., lead
Pb 0.164 g
oxide, lead sulfate, and lead carbonate).
▲

▲
Slurry 1st-Stage 2nd-Stage Filtrate Thus, the leaching kinetics of metallic
Tank Reactor Reactor Tank lead was investigated because, when
Filtrate
metallic lead was leached, the other lead
Pb Conc. 554 mg/kg/Pb wt. 4.3 g
Sulfide Solution
species would also be leached. Follow-
ing are some results of the leaching tests.
∑ When the speed of stirring was un-
▲▲ Filtrate der 800 rpm, the kinetics of lead
leaching were controlled by diffu-
▲
▲
2nd Drum
Filter sion. Increasing the speed of stir-
Pb Cake to Smelter ring increased the rate of leaching.
Pb wt. 4.27 g
▲

However, when the stirring speed

▲

Filtrate
Precipitation Tank
Reactor Regenerated Solution
Pb Conc. 4.4 mg/kg / Pb wt. 0.03 g
Figure 3. The soil-leaching test for soil sample #1.
obtain a guide for finding the optimum
lead dissolution conditions. The data of
standard free energies of formation of
lead species existing in leaching solution
and the equations used to calculate the
equilibrium concentration distribution
of lead species were given in Man’s the-
sis.19 Also shown were the equations for
building the Eh-Log[Cl–] diagram of the
Pb-Cl–-H2O system and the lead species
distribution. The Eh-Log[Cl–] diagram
of the Pb-Cl–-H2O system is shown in
Figure 1.
It is obvious from the Eh-Log[Cl–] dia-
gram that the lead species are stable in
the Pb-Cl–-H2O system. The equilibrium
potential between metallic lead and
leadchloro-complexes becomes more
negative along with the increase in chlo-
ride ion activity. In addition, the dia-
gram shows that cathodic reduction of
lead species from the solution would be
was above 800 rpm, the kinetics were
controlled by chemical reaction and
stirring speed had no effect on the
leaching rate.
∑ Since, in heterogeneous reactions
like lead leaching, the reaction oc-
ride ion and Eh should be avoided in the curs on the surface of lead particles,
design of a practical lead leaching reac- the rate of reaction will depend on
tion. At a relatively low chloride concen- the surface area of the interface. At
tration, lead oxide or hydroxide could a stirring speed above 800 rpm, the
form to slow the leaching. When the leaching rate follows the shrinking
activity of chloride ion is increased to particle model of 1-(1-R)1/3 = (k/r0)t,
around 2M and the Eh is above –0.25 V, where R is the fraction of lead
PbCl3– and PbCl42-– exist in the solution, leached; k is the reaction constant; r0
which favors lead dissolution thermo- is the initial radius of lead particle,
dynamically, because of their complex and t is the reaction time. The slope
ion effects. It is clear in the Eh-Log[Cl–] is in proportion to 1/r0.
diagram that the optimum ranges of chlo- ∑ The rate of the lead leaching in-
ride-ion concentration and Eh are around creases with an increase in tempera-
2M and above –0.25 V, respectively. For ture. The apparent activation en-
materials and methods of the study, see ergy calculated from the Arrhenius
the sidebar. plot is 46 kj/mol (11.00 kcal/mol).
Water
Soil 13,000 g
Pb Conc. 5721 mg/kg
Pb 74.38 g
▼ Pb Debris 60.68 g
Trommet
▼▼

more difficult and conversely, anodic

▼

dissolution of metallic lead would be

easier. These effects were confirmed in ▼
the laboratory test of this study. Figure 1 Hopper Slurry Hand Sorting Soil 1,800 g
▼

Conveyer Tank
also shows that various lead species form Feeder Pb Conc. 139 mg/kg
▼ Pb 0.25 g
at various Eh and [Cl–], and that Pb2+ is
Soil 11,200 g
restricted to the range of high Eh and Cleaned Soil
low concentration of chloride ion. Vari- Pump Stockpile
ous lead species predominate as the Eh ▼
and the activity of chloride ion vary. To Leaching Circuit
Elutriator
▼

PbCl2 occurs when the activity of chlo- Belt

ride ion is in the range of 0.66–1.25M and Jig Soil 8,000 g
Filter
Eh is above –0.18V. As the activity of Pb Conc. 830 mg/kg
▼ Pb 6.64 g
chloride ion increases, the fractions of
Pb2+ and PbCl+ decrease dramatically, Dewater ▼
Pb Con. ▼ Cone Water
but the fractions of PbCl3– and PbCl42– Soil 1,176 g to Water Sump
increase.19 Because of the relatively low Pb Conc. 4,082 mg/kg ▼
solubility product of PbCl2 (1.6 ¥ 10–5), it Pb 4.8 g
▼ Soil 2,000 g
is possible under proper chloride and Water Cleaned Soil Pb Conc. 342 mg/kg
lead concentration that PbCl2 precipi- Stockpile Pb 6.85 g
▼

tates from the solution and adheres on

Water
the surface of metallic lead, thus retard- Sump/Pump
ing further dissolution of metallic lead.
Therefore, this range of activity of chlo- Figure 4. The soil-washing test for soil sample #2.

2001 December • JOM 23

 ∑ The kinetics of the lead leaching Soils from
were controlled by chemical reac- Gravity
Circuit Soil 5.4 TPH
tion at high stirring speeds, and the Pb Conc. 490 mg/kg
reaction followed the shrinking par- Soil 5.4 TPH Pb 2.32 kg/h
Water 0.6 TPH Rinse (Water)
ticle model of 1-(1-R)1/3 = kt at vari- Pb Conc. 490 mg/kg ▲
Oxidants/Acid
▲
Pb 2.32 kg/h
ous potentials. All potentials (E) Water 10.03 TPH Solution 12.6 TPH Lime
were reported as vs. standard hy-

▲
Beltfilter
▲
drogen electrode. The plot of Log k Cleaned Soil Cake

▲
▲ ▲ ▲▲ ▲▲
1st Drum
vs. Log E gives a straight line with a Filter ▲
slope of 1, indicating that the lead
▲ Soil 5.4 TPH
Water Pb Conc. 80 mg/kg
leaching reaction is a first order re- 9.43 TPH Pb 0.39 g

▲
action with respect to solution po-

▲
Slurry 1st-Stage 2nd-Stage Filtrate
tential. Tank Reactor Reactor Tank
∑ The insoluble lead hydrolytic prod-
ucts form a thin film, which adheres Filtrate 12.6 TPH Pb 1.93 kg/h Pb Conc. 170 mg/kg
to the surface of lead at low chlo- Sulfide Solution
ride-ion concentration, thus retard-
ing further dissolution of lead. When ▲▲ Filtrate
the solution contains high chloride ▲
▲
concentrations, lead chloro-com- 2nd Drum
Filter
plexes form instead of lead hydro- Pb Cake to Smelter
Pb 1.89 kg/h

▲
lytic products, thus increasing the

rate of the lead leaching reaction.
∑ The higher the concentration of chlo-
ride ion, the greater the extraction
rate. The lead leaching reaction fol-
lows the shrinking particle model at
different chloride concentrations.
∑ Test results indicate that low pH
facilitates better extraction and en-
hances reaction speed. The reason
for this is that the oxidation of lead
by hypochlorite is more favorable
in acidic conditions: ClO– + H2O +
2e = Cl– + 2OH–. Also, lead chloride,
oxide, or hydroxide film is less likely
to form in acidic conditions.
Lead Precipitation from Solution
A high pH is favorable to obtaining
the better precipitation results when a
stoichiometric amount of sulfide ion is
added. At a solution with lower pH,
hydrogen sulfide is more likely to form
when sulfide ion is added, thus consum-
ing the sulfide ion needed to precipitate
Oxidants/Acid
Soils From
Washing Circuit
▲
Filtrate
Precipitation Tank
Reactor
Regenerated Solution 12.6 TPH
Pb 0.05 kg/h Pb Conc. 4 mg/kg
Figure 6. The soil-washing circuit of a design 50 t/h soil-washing and leaching process.
lead sulfide. A lower chloride concen-
density was about 30% solid by weight
tration facilitates better lead precipita-
in both leaching stages, while the solu-
tion. The reason is that high [Cl–] helps to
tion potential was about 1.3 V and 0.6 V
form stable lead chloride complexes, as
in first and secondary stage leaching,
shown in Figure 1.
respectively. The retention time of each
Soil Washing and Leaching Tests leaching stage was 15–20 minutes.
The resulting filtrate of the leaching
Two soil samples were tested for soil
slurry was directed to the lead precipita-
washing and leaching, according to the
tion circuit. The solution pH of the lead
flowsheets shown in Figures 2–5. Metal-
precipitation circuit is about 2.0. A sto-
lic lead could be seen in both soil samples.
ichiometric amount of sulfur ion added
Based on the results of lead leaching and
as sodium sulfide was pumped to the
lead precipitation discussed in the pre-
precipitation circuit, with a retention time
vious section, the chloride ion concen-
of ten minutes.
tration in both leaching stages was ad-
The results of soil washing and leach-
justed to about 2.0 M with the pH of 1.5
ing are shown in Figures 2–5. The soil-
in first-stage leaching and the pH of 2.0
leaching circuit reduces lead content to
in secondary-stage leaching. The pulp
about 80 mg/kg in both soil samples.
This low lead content will meet toxicity
▲ Rinse (Water) characteristic leaching procedure tests.
In some cases, an additional jig may be
Slurry Lime
needed in the soil washing circuit to
▲

▲
30% by wt. Cleaned Soil Cake reduce lead to less than 100 mg/kg.
Soil 8,000 g
▲

▲▲ ▲▲ ▲▲
Pb Conc. 830 mg/kg 1st Drum
Pb 6.64 g Filter ▲
Soil 8,000 g
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Pb Conc. 81 mg/kg
Pb 0.648 g A portable soil washing and leaching
▲

plant has been designed based on the

▲

Slurry 1st-Stage 2nd-Stage Filtrate washing and leaching tests of the two
Tank Reactor Reactor Tank
Filtrate soil samples. Efficiencies similar to the
Pb Conc. 318 mg/kg/Pb wt. 5.99g
test unit operations were used for the
Sulfide Solution design. Many factors in metallurgical
plant operation were also included in
the design.20–26 The designed flowsheet
▲▲ Filtrate ▲ of 50 tonnes per hour is presented in
▲
2nd Drum
Figure 6 and Figure 7. An economic
Filter analysis and evaluation was made based
Pb Cake to Smelter on a 50 tonne per hour portable soil
Pb wt. 5.92 g
▲

washing and leaching plant. The de-

▲

Filtrate
Precipitation Tank signed plant consists of a gravity circuit
Reactor Regenerated Solution
and a leaching circuit to treat lead-con-
Pb Conc. 3.6 mg/kg / Pb wt. 0.07g
taminated soils. The gravity circuit
Figure 5. The soil-leaching test for soil sample #2.
handles metallic lead with particle sizes

24 JOM • December 2001

larger than 0.15 mm, while the leaching
circuit deals with metallic lead particles
smaller than 0.15 mm and other lead
species. The designed soil washing and
leaching plant includes a front-end
loader, excavator, bulldozer, trommel,
sandscrew, dewater cyclone, dewater
cone, truck, four flatbed trucks, and three
jigs as the major equipment of the grav-
ity separation circuit. Six pumps, three
reactors, two drum filters, and one belt
filter are the main equipment of the leach-
ing circuit. In addition, the soil bulk
density was assumed to be 2,080 kg/m3
and the approximate swell of soil to be
15%. Ninety percent of the soil particles
and 75% of lead particles were assumed
to be larger than 0.15 mm. The plant was
also assumed to operate 24 hours per
day for six months in one year; the time
needed to transport equipment to the
site, prepare the site, and install equip-
ment was five weeks, and the down
time, three weeks. According to the above
assumptions, the total soil treated per
year is 144,000 tonnes. The detailed cal-
culation showed the operating cost and
capital cost were $1,963,000 and
$4,756,000 (1996 dollars), respectively.19
Cost per tonne of soil treated = (Oper-
ating Cost + Capital Cost ¥ A/Pi,n)/ ton-
nage of soil treated per year, (where A/
Pi,n is capital recovery factor and is de-
fined as: A = P[i(1+i)n][(1+i)n–1].27 With a
15% of rate of return, i, and five years of
plant life, n, A/Pi,n is 0.2983 and the cost
per tonne of soil treated was calculated
to be $23.5. The calculated cost per tonne
of soil treated was an order of magni-
tude lower than that of a typical environ-
mental process.
Characteristics of contaminated soils
are site-specific. Lead concentration, lead
species, lead and soil particle sizes, and
Feed 50 TPH
Pb Conc. 600 mg/kg
Pb 29.9 kg/h
▲ Gravity Concentration, Oxidation Leaching and Sulfide Pre-
▲
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Reagents
All reagents used in this study were of reagent grade.
The metallic lead was screened to several size frac-
tions. The two soil samples were from a battery-break-
ing site in Fairbanks, Alaska and a shooting range site
in Delaware, with lead concentrations of 750 and 5,721
mg/kg, respectively.
Procedure
Metallic lead-leaching tests were conducted in a two-
liter glass reactor housed in an oil bath for temperature
control. Sodium chloride, hydrochloric acid, and sodium
hypochlorite were used to adjust chloride-ion concen-
tration, pH, and Eh, respectively. The tests were con-
ducted at room temperature, unless otherwise noted. A
detailed description of the reactor is shown elsewhere.14
During the test, the pH and Eh were kept at desired
soil matrix have an impact on the soil
washing and leaching process. If neces-
sary, an additional set of jig in the soil
washing circuit and a longer retention
time in the soil leaching circuit could
further reduce the lead in the soil.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The financial support of the Alaska Sci-
ence and Technology Foundation and
BESCORP for this study is appreciated.
References
1. S. Griffin, “Application of USEPA’s Ubiokinetic Model for
Establishing Soil Lead Cleanup Levels at Superfund Sites,”
HMCRI Superfund ’91 Conf. Proceedings (Greenbelt, MD:
HMCRI, 1991), p. 495.
2. R.S. Simms and K. Wagner, “In-situ Technologies Applicable
to Large Quantities of Hazardous Waste Contaminated Soils
(Cincinnati, OH: U.S. EPA Municipal Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, 1991).
3. M. Royer and T. Basu, Selection of Control Technologies for
Remediation of Lead Battery Recycling Sites, EPA/540/2-91/
014 (Edison, NJ: EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Labora-
tory (RREL), 1988).
4. P. Esposito, “Characterization of RCRA/CERCLA Sites,”
EPA Workshop on Extractive Treatment of Excavated Soil
(Edison, NJ: EPA RREL, 8 December 1988).
5. E. Barth and R. Soundararajan, “Solidification/Stabiliza-
tion Treatment of Lead Battery Site Soils,” HMCRI Superfund
Water 44.72 TPH
values by adding hydrochloric acid and sodium hy-
pochlorite. After each experiment, the pH and Eh of the
solution were measured and recorded.
In the soil-washing and leaching tests, the soil samples
were fed into the trommel, which was operated at 20
revolutions per minute. The screen of the trommel had
an aperture of 3.2 mm. The trommel oversize was
discharged out of the gravity circuit. The undersize was
pumped to an elutriator, where the –0.15 mm fine soil
reported to the elutriator overflow and the +0.15 mm soil
underflow. The +0.15 mm soil was served as the feed to
a jig. The elutriator overflow was filtered and then sent
to the leaching circuit.
Analysis
All solid samples were digested with aqua regia.
Lead concentration in all solution samples were deter-
mined using an atomic adsorption spectrophotometer.
‘90 Conf. Proceedings 9Greenbelt, MD: HMCRI, 1990), p. 665.
6. M. Royer, A. Selvakumar, and R. Gaire, “Control Tech-
nologies for Remediation of Contaminated Soil and Water
Deposits at Superfund Lead Battery Recycling Sites,” J. Air
and Waste Management, 42 (7) (1992), p. 970.
7. M. Royer, Engineering Bulletin: Selection of Control Technolo-
gies for Remediation of Lead Battery Recycling Site Wastes, EPA/
540/s-92/011 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, 1992).
8. P. Queneau and A. Troutman, “Waste Minimization
Charges Up Recycling of Spent Lead Acid Batteries,” HazMat
World, (1993), p. 34.
9. R. Coleman and R. Vandervort, Evaluation of Paul Beigsoe
and Son Secondary Lead Smelter, EPA-600/2-80-022 (Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. EPA Off. of R&D, 1980).
10. A.D. Zunkel and J.C. Taylor, “Integrated Primary/Sec-
ondary Lead Smelting,” J. Metals, 40 (1) (1988), p. 32.
11. W.E. Fristad and C. Jones, TM Lead Leaching/Recovery
Process at the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, EPA report
540/R-94/503 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, May 1994), p.
62.
12. C. Ganguly, R.P. Long, and N.P. Nikolaidis, “Metal Ion
Leaching from Contaminated Soils: Model Calibration and
Application,” J. Enviro. Eng., 124 (12) (1998), pp. 1150–1158.
13. G.C.C. Yang and S.L. Lin, “Removal of Lead from a Silt
Loam Soil by Electrokinetic Remediation,” J. Hazardous Ma-
terials, 58 (1998), pp. 285–299.
14. S.K. Puppala et al., ”Enhanced Electrokinetic Remediation
of High Sorption Capacity Soil,” J. Hazardous Materials, 55
(1997), pp. 203–220.
15. R.S. Li and L.Y. Li, “Enhancement of Electrokinetic Ex-
traction from Lead-Spiked Soil,” J. Enviro. Eng., 126 (59)
(2000), pp. 849–857.
16. C.G. Rampley and K.L. Ogden, “Preliminary Studies for
Removing Lead from Sand Real Soils Using a Water Soluble
Chelator: Adsorption and Batch Extraction,” Enviro. Sci. and
Technol., 32 (7) (1998), pp. 987–993.
17. M.C. Steele and J. Pichtel, “Ex-situ Remediation of a Metal
Contaminated Superfund Soil Using Selective Extractants,”
J. Enviro. Eng., 124 (7) (1998), pp. 639–645.
18. J. Pichtel and T.M. Pichtel, “Comparison of Solvents for
Ex-situ Removal of Chromium and Lead from Contami-
nated Soil,” Enviro. Eng. Sci., 14 (2) (1997), pp. 97–104.
19. X.D. Man, “Removal of Lead from Contaminated Soil by

Trommel cipitation” (M.S. thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks,

▲

1997).
20. N.L. Weiss, ed., SME Mineral Processing Handbook (New
Loader
▲
York: Soc. Mining Eng., 1985), section 4, p. 13.
▲

Slurry Soil 31.25 TPH 21. R.O. Burt, Gravity Concentration Technology (Amsterdam:
Hopper Conveyer Tank Jig
Feeder
▲ Pb Conc. < 10 mg/kg Elsevier, 1984), pp. 213–214.
Soil 18.75 TPH Water 0.97 TPH 22. D.E. Walsh, P.D. Rao, and D.J. Cook, Study of a Static
Pb Conc. 1,600 mg/kg Screen, Jig, Spiral, and a Compound Water Cyclone in a Placer
Pb 29.9 kg/h
▲ Cleaned Soil Gold Recovery Plant, MIRL Report No. 73 (Fairbanks, AK:
Pump Stockpile Mineral Industry Res. Lab., 1987), pp. 13–44.
Water 43.75 TPH
▲ Pb Con
23. A.L. Mular and R.B. Bhappu, eds., Mineral Processing
1st Jig Makeup Water Plant Design (New York: Soc. Mining Eng., 1980), p. 366.
Makeup Water
▲

22.5 TPH 24. N.L. Weiss, ed., SME Mineral Processing Handbook (New
▲ ▲ ▲ York: Soc. Mining Eng., 1985), section 3D, pp. 38–49.
▲ Sandscrew Soil 13.3 TPH 25. N.L. Weiss, ed., SME Mineral Processing Handbook (New
to Water Sump Pb Conc. 80 mg/kg York: Soc. Mining Eng., 1985), section 9, p. 27.
To Water Sump Pb 1.11 kg/h 26. Bureau of Mines Cost Estimating System Handbook, IC 9143
▲

15.04 TPH
▲

Dewater Cone ▲ Water 3.33 TPH (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1987), pp. 47–451.
Water 39.44 TPH
▲
27. F.J. Stermole and M.S. Stermole, Self Teaching Manual for
▲

▲
Control the Text-Economic Evaluation and Investment Decision Methods
Valve Water (Golden, CO: Investment Evaluations Corp., 1990), pp. 30–
▲ Sump/Pump Dewater Cleaned Soil Dozer 35.
2nd Jig Cyclone Stockpile
Makeup Water H.K. Lin, X.D. Man, and D.E. Walsh are with the
▲

▲ Mineral Industry Research Laboratory, University of

Pb Conc. Alaska Fairbanks.
▲

Water
▲
Soil 0.047 TPH To Leaching Circuit
Dewater Pb Conc. 56.38% Soil 5.4 TPH
Bin Pb 26.5 kg/h Pb Conc. 490 mg/kg For more information, contact H.K. Lin, Mineral
Water 0.893 TPH Pb 2.32 kg/h Industry Research Laboratory, University of
Water 10.03 TPH Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7240;
(907) 474-6347; fax (907) 474-5400; e-mail: ffhkl@
Figure 7. The soil-leaching circuit of a design 50 t/h soil-washing and leaching process. aurora.alaska.edu.

2001 December • JOM 25