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

net/publication/326827290

Application of Solvent-In-Pulp Technique for Uranium Extraction from

Mineralization Granite

Article · January 2017

CITATION READS

1 280

4 authors, including:

A. E. M. Hussein W. M. Youssef
Nuclear Materials Authority of Egypt Nuclear Materials Authority, Cairo, Egypt
31 PUBLICATIONS   272 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   74 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Akram Eldidamony
Zagazig University
85 PUBLICATIONS   717 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Two selective spectrophotometric methods for the determination of thioridazine hydrochloride in tablets and in biological fluids View project

Spectrophotometric determination of diphenhydramine hydrochloride in pharmaceutical preparations and biological fluids via ion-pair formation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by A. E. M. Hussein on 04 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 M. M. Ali, et al. Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl, Vol 50, 3, 217-228 (2017)
The Egyptian
Arab Journal of Nuclear Sciences and Applications Society of Nuclear
Vol 50, 3, (217-228) 2017 Sciences and
Applications

ISSN 1110-0451 Web site: esnsa-eg.com (ESNSA)

Application of Solvent-In-Pulp Technique for Uranium Extraction from

Mineralization Granite
M. M. Ali a, A. E. M. Husseina, W. M. Youseif a and A.M. El Didamony b
(a)
Nuclear Materials Authority, Cairo, Egypt
(b)
Faculty of Science, Zagazig University, Egypt

Received: 30/12/2016 Accepted: 27/2/2017

ABSTRACT
Investigations on uranium extraction from a representative mineralized
granite sample (Gattar granite GII) by solvent-in-pulp (SIP) technique were carried
out in the present study. For this purpose, the solvent (tri-butyl amine) (TBA) was
mixed with the leaching slurry without prior filtration. The influence of various
factors affecting the SIP process, such as contact time, solvent concentration,
dilution factor, type of surfactant, surfactant/solid ratio were studied. About 91%
uranium extraction efficiency was attained by the application of the chosen
extraction SIP conditions. Also, about 96% of the loaded uranium could be stripped
by using sulfuric acid as an effective stripping agent.
Keywords: Uranium/ Extraction/ Solvent-in-pulp

INTRODUCTION
Several uranium occurrences have been discovered in various localities in the Egyptian terrains.
These include mainly the different uranium mineralization associated with younger granites of the
basement rocks in the Eastern Desert or else those associated with the sedimentary Carboniferous
rocks of the Um Bugma Formation in West Central Sinai. Among uranium mineralization of the
former type, that occur in Gabal Gattar younger granite pluton at about 40 km NW Hurghada City is
greatly promising due to its relatively wide distribution in a number of occurrences. In the north
eastern part of Gable Gattar, the younger granites host several small uranium occurrences that have
been discovered along various factors, fault planes and joints that distributed in strongly sheared zones
(1)
. The uranium mineralization is essentially manifested in the form of secondary uranium minerals
with uranophane as the most abundant (2).
Solvent extraction (3-7), ion exchange resin(8) liquid membrane(9) and direct precipitation(10)
methods are commonly employed in the nuclear industry as techniques for the recovery of uranium
from leach solutions. To carry out this operation, special equipment was used such as mixer settlers
and ion-exchange columns. The used leach solutions must be prepared and clarified since fine solids
may produce stable emulsions or columns blocking which prevents phase separation and the presence
of severe operational problems. However the clarifications (or filtration) operations required are
expensive. According to Campbell et al.(11) the capital and operating costs for clarification processes
are estimated to be 30% and 10-20% respectively of the nuclear industry. Consequently, if these
operations can be eliminated by using slurries, significant investments should be achieved. This
method of processing has been termed solvent-in-pulp(12) (SIP). If dilute slurries were used in SIP
processing, the filtration operation would be removed.

712
 M. M. Ali, et al. Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl, Vol 50, 3, 217-228 (2017)

An extensive economic study was carried out by Ritcey et al.(13). The authors compared
processing characteristics and economics of resin-in-pulp and solvent-in-pulp operations as applied to
uranium extraction, and runs were carried out with continuous aqueous and organic phases. Although
the process was easier to operate with the continuous organic phase, operation with the continuous
aqueous phase resulted in much lower solvent losses and was consequently recommended as the
favored mode of operation. Solvent losses were found to be the serious factor influencing the
economics of the process. Some further investigations have been carried out to determine the factors
influencing solvent losses. Ellis et al.(14) found that losses could be substantially reduced by the
addition of hydrophilic surfactants. By avoiding high losses of solvent to the particles, and removal of
possibilities for crud formation, extraction and recovery of uranium directly from the leach slurry is
thus proved feasible (14). Once uranium is in the solvent, the second operation step starts by stripping
uranium from the loaded solvent. Several reagents were tested in this regard such as H2SO4, Na2CO3,
HCl, HNO3 and H2O.
The main objective of this study is uranium recovery from Gattar granite GII by SIP
technique. To achieve this purpose the effect of various factors affecting uranium extraction by the SIP
technique from GII leaching slurry such as, solvent concentration, slurry dilution, shaking time,
solid/liquid phase ratio, diluent type and solvent consumption (surfactant type and surfactant/ slurry
ratio) were studied. The second part of the study focused on the uranium stripping from the working
solvent. In this regard, several factors were studied such as stripping agent type, stripping agent
concentration, shaking time and organic/ aqueous phase ratio

EXPERIMENTAL
2.1. Materials
The chemical reagents that have been used in this study were of high purity Tributylamine
(TBA) ≥ 98% (Riedel-deHaen), kerosene (Misr. Co.), uranylacetate (UO2(CH3COO)2.2H2O, (BDH
Chemicals Ltd. Poole, England) and Molasses (Misr. Co.), and Sulfuric acid (BDH) 98%.
The representative sample was collected from Gabal Gattar, with the chemical composition of
1310 mg/l U, 2.11% SO42-, 1.61% PO43-, 71.51% SiO2, 0.42% CaO, 7.01% Fe2O3 and 0.06 % TiO2.

2.2. Experimental Procedure

Working Slurry Preparation
Proper conventional agitation leaching of studied sample was performed by sulfuric acid, based
on the previous studied leaching conditions of Mahfous(15). These included 30 kg/t sulfuric acid, 1/5
solid/liquid ratio, -35 mesh grain size and the leaching was performed for 4 h agitation time at room
temperature. Analysis of the obtained leach slurry (pH 1.1) revealed an assay of 1280 mg/l for
uranium and 46.0 g/l for SO42-. Under the latter mentioned preferred conditions, about 97.67%
uranium leaching efficiency was attained.
Uranium Extraction
The influence of various factors affecting uranium extraction by the SIP technique from GII
leaching slurry such as, solvent concentration, slurry dilution, shaking time, solid/liquid phase ratio ,
diluent type and solvent consumption (surfactant type and surfactant/ slurry ratio) were studied.
Uranium Stripping
The effect of several factors affecting uranium stripping from TBA namely, stripping agent
type, stripping agent concentration, shaking time and organic/ aqueous phase ratio were investigated.
For this purpose a loaded TBA sample (0.978 gU/l) was proper prepared by accumulative uranium
extraction from the leach slurry.

712
 M. M. Ali, et al. Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl, Vol 50, 3, 217-228 (2017)

2.3. Analytical Method

Uranium was analyzed in the corresponding aqueous phases under different conditions(16) using
Arsenazo III reagent. For this purpose, a Lambada UV/VIS spectro-photometer (Perkin-Elmer, USA)
was used.
2.4. Equilibration Calculation
All uranium speciations in this study were achieved with Hydra-MEDUSA, a chemical
equilibrium calculation program (17).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Relevant Factors of Uranium Extraction from Gattar Granite GII Sample Using SIP
Method
3.1.1. Effect of Solvent Concentration
To study the effect of tri-butyl amine (TBA) solvent concentration on uranium recovery from
the study sample leaching slurry uranium conc., 1280 mg/l, series of extraction experiments were
performed by contacting fixed slurry portions (20 ml) with the solvent of different concentrations
ranged from 0.05 to 1.06 M (1 - 20%) in benzene. The other conditions were fixed, namely, dilution
factor of 230 g solid/l, shaking time of 15 min. and solvent/liquid phase ratio of 1/1. After separation
of the the two phases, uranium was determined in the aqueous phase and there upon the extraction
efficiency was calculated by the different. From the obtained results, (Fig. 1), it was clearly obvious
that uranium extraction efficiency increases with increasing the solvent concentration. On the other
hand, one could observe that the loss of solvent ratio decreased slightly by increasing its
concentration.
100 100
Uranium extraction efficiency,

80 Solvent loss, % 80

Solvent loss, %
U. ext. eff., %
60 60
%

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Solvent (TBA) conc., %
Fig. (1): Effect of solvent concentration on uranium extraction efficiency from Gattar Granite GII
sample (dilution factor of 230 g solid/l, shaking time of 15 min., solvent/liquid phase ratio
of 1/1 and slurry pH of 1.1)

3.1.2. Effect of Dilution

In order to study the effect of the dilution factor of the leaching slurry on uranium extraction, a
series of experiments were performed by contacting fixed slurry portions (20ml) of uranium conc.,
1280 mg/l with different solid contents (weight of solid in slurry solution) ranging from 102 up to 230
g solid /l by adding water to original leaching slurry. It is important to mention, that the uranium
concentration has been justified in every sample by adding desired volumes of uranium standards. The
other conditions were fixed namely; solvent concentration of 20%, shaking time of 15 min and
solvent/liquid phase ratio of 1/1. The obtained results show that uranium extraction efficiency
decreased from about 56 down to 26%) by increasing the solid content from 102 to 230 g/l

712
 M. M. Ali, et al. Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl, Vol 50, 3, 217-228 (2017)

respectively (Fig. 2), and the solvent loss increased from 5 up to 17 % of solvent by increasing the
solid content. The decrease of uranium extraction efficiency with the increase of the solid content
could be attributed to the increase of solid particles which inhibit the free motion of the solvent
molecules in the matrix. On the other hand, the increase in solvent loss could be attributed to
absorbing the solvent molecules on the surface of the thick gangue of mineral particles.
100 100
Uranium extraction efficieny, %

80 U.extraction % 80

Solvent loss, %
Solvent loss, %
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Solid conc., g/l

Fig. (2): Effect of solids concentration upon uranium extraction efficiency from Gattar
Granite GII sample (Solvent conc. of 20% in benzene, shaking time of 15 min.,
solvent/liquid phase ratio of 1/1 and slurry pH of 1.1)
3.1.3. Effect of Shaking Time
To study the effect of shaking time upon uranium extraction efficiency from Gattar GII granite
sample, series of extraction experiments were performed by contacting fixed slurry portions (20 ml) of
uranium conc. of 1280 mg/l with the solvent using time intervals ranging from 1 up to 120 min. Other
conditions were fixed namely, solids conc. of 102 g/l, phase ratio of 1/1 and solvent concentration of
20%. The obtained results could indicate that uranium extraction efficiency increases with increasing
shaking time (Fig.3) while solvent loss was nearly unaffected. Accordingly, it was decided to choose
60 minute as the optimum shaking time.
100 100
Uranium extrction efficiency, %

Solvent loss, %
80 U. ext. eff., % 80
Solvent loss, %

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Skaking time, min.

Fig. (3): Effect of shaking time upon uranium extraction efficiency from Granite GII
sample (Solvent conc. of 20% in benzene, solids conc. of 102 g/l,
solvent/liquid phase ratio of 1/1 and slurry pH of 1.1)

772
 M. M. Ali, et al. Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl, Vol 50, 3, 217-228 (2017)

3.1.4. Factors Affecting Solvent Loss

Successful SIP extraction operation of uranium from the obtained leach slurry will be measured
by the extraction efficiency as well as by the lost amount of solvent. Accordingly, non-ionic
hydrophilic organic material e.g. molasses, glue, crud sugar and hydrophobic organic surfactant e.g.
vegetable oil were tested. These reagents were added to the leach slurry to minimize or prevent solvent
adsorption losses on the ore and gangue particles in the subsequent extraction process.

3.1.4.1. Effect of Surfactant Type

To study the effect surfactant type upon uranium extraction, various types were tested, mainly;
molasses, glue, crud sugar and vegetable oil. The experiments were performed by mixing 0.5 g of each
surfactant with the slurry portions (20 ml of slurry with uranium conc. of 1280 mg/l) for 30 min prior
to contact them with the solvent. The solvent loss is calculated by the difference in weight before and
after the contact. Other factors were fixed at a solvent concentration of 20%, solid content of 102 g/l
for 60 min. contact time and solvent /slurry ratio of 1/1. The results show that the higher uranium
extraction efficiency (about 60%) was obtained by using glue as an effective surfactant (Fig. 4).

100
Uranium extraction efficiency and

80 U.extraction %
Solvent loss, %
solvent loss, %

60

40

20

0
Molase Glue Crud sugar Vegitable oil
Surfactant type
Fig. (4): Effect of surfactant type on uranium extraction efficiency and solvent loss
(Solvent conc. of 20% in benzene, solids conc. of 102 g/l., shaking time of
60 min., solvent/liquid phase ratio of 1/1 and slurry pH of 1.1)

3.1.4.2. Effect of Surfactant Amount

To investigate the effect of surfactant amount upon the uranium extraction efficiency, a series of
extraction experiments were performed by contacting fixed slurry portions (20 ml of slurry with
uranium conc. of 1280 mg/l) with the surfactant proper mixing with the solvent. For this purpose,
different amounts of glue, ranging from 25 up to 200 g/l were added and agitated with the slurry
before solvent. Other factors were fixed at solvent concentration of 20 % TBA, shaking time of 60
min. and solid amount of 102 g/l. From the obtained data (Fig.5) it could be observed that by
increasing the surfactant (glue) amount led to a noticeable decreases solvent loss. In the same time,
uranium extraction efficiency increased with increasing the former glue amount.

771
 M. M. Ali, et al. Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl, Vol 50, 3, 217-228 (2017)

100 100
Uranium extraction efficiency, %
U.extraction %

80 Loss of solvent % 80

Solvent loss, %
60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Surfactant amount, g/l

Fig (5): Effect of surfactant amount upon uranium extraction efficiency and solvent loss
(Solvent conc. of 20% in benzene, solids conc. of 102 g/l., shaking time of 60 min.,
surfactant type of glue and slurry pH of 1.1)

3.1.5. Effect of Slurry/Organic Phase Ratio

In order to identify the effect of diluted slurry/organic phase ratio upon uranium recovery, a
series of extraction experiments were performed by contacting the diluted slurry with TBA solution in
benzene (20 ml of slurry with uranium conc. of 1280 mg/l) using different ratios ranging from 0.5/1 up
to 4/1. These experiments were performed under fixed conditions of solvent concentration of 20 %
TBA for 60 min. contact time, solid content of 102 g/l and 100 g/l of glue. It is noticed that the
uranium extraction efficiency increases with the increase of the phase ratios (Fig. 6). Increasing
uranium extraction efficiency in association with increasing the phase ratio could be explained in
relation to the decrease in the viscosity of the slurry, a matter which could enhance uranium extraction
efficiency (as shown in the last experiment of 4/1 A/O ratio). On the other hand, the solvent loss
(consumption) decreased by increasing slurry /organic phase ratios as shown in the last experiment.
100 100
Uranium extraction efficiency,

80 80
Solvent loss, %

60 U. extraction 60
%

Solvent loss
40 40

20 20

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Slurry/Organic phase ratio

Fig. (6): Effect of aqueous/organic phase ratio upon uranium extraction efficiency and
solvent loss (Solvent conc. of 20% in benzene, solids conc. of 102 g/l., shaking
time of 60 min., surfactant type of glue, surfactant amount of 100g/l and slurry
pH of 1.1)

777
 M. M. Ali, et al. Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl, Vol 50, 3, 217-228 (2017)

3.1.6. Effect of Diluent Type

In order to identify the effect of diluent types on the uranium extraction efficiency of the diluted
leaching slurry from Gattar GII granite sample, different diluents were tested namely; benzene,
toluene, cyclohexane and kerosene. Different solvent sample diluted by the previous diluents were
contacted with different slurry portions (20 ml each) with fixed uranium concentration of 1280 g/l.
Other factors were fixed at solvent concentration of 20% TBA, for 60 min contact time, solid content
of 102 g/l, surfactant amount of 100 g/l (glue) and slurry/organic phase ratio of 4/1. The obtained data
shows that benzene and kerosene gave nearly equal ratios of the maximum uranium extraction
efficiency and minimum solvent loss (Fig. 7). Based on the economic considerations, we recommend
kerosene as diluent.

100
Uranium extraction efficiency, %

80 U.extraction
Solvent loss
60

40

20

0
Benzene Toluene Cyclohexane Kerosene
Dilluent type
Fig. (7): Effect of diluent type on uranium extraction efficiency from Gattar granite GII
composite sample (Solvent conc. of 20% in benzene, solids conc. of 102 g/l.,
shaking time of 60 min., solvent/liquid phase ratio of 4/1, surfactant type of glue,
surfactant amount of 100g/l and slurry pH of 1.1)

3.1.7. Choice of the Preferred Conditions of Uranium Extraction from Gattar Granite GII
Sample
From the previous study of relevant factors of uranium extraction, it would be possible to attain
comparable extraction efficiencies by different combinations of the studied relevant factors. Careful
selection of the conditions would depend primarily on economic considerations. In the light of the
studied relevant factors, it would seem economically to select the following extraction conditions,
solvent concentration of 20%, extraction time of 60 min, solid content of 102 g/l, glue as surfactant of
100 g/l, slurry/organic phase ratio of 4/1 and using kerosene as the diluent substance.

3.2. Amine/Uranium Extraction Mechanism

When considering amine extraction systems, the amine salt should be regarded as the extracting
agent, rather than the free amine itself. The amine is firstly converted to the appropriate amine salt:
RH2N + HX = RH2N+H.X- (1)
The amine is forms with an acid (HX) – in the organic phase – amine salt (or polar ion-pair),
RH2N+H.X--. On contacting this solvent with an aqueous solution of an ionic metal species (MY-), the
exchange occurs according to the following equation(18-20);
RH2N+H.X- + MY- = RH2N+H.MY- + X- (2)
Thus the amine salt, and not the free amine, should be considered as being the extracting agent.

773
 M. M. Ali, et al. Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl, Vol 50, 3, 217-228 (2017)

In the acid sulfate systems, the importance of pH becomes more pronounced than in the nitrate
or chloride systems due to the dibasic character of sulfuric acid, a character which gives it the ability
of forming sulfate-bisulfate equilibrium, i.e.,
H2SO4 = H+ + HSO4- (3)
- +
HSO4 = H + SO42- (4)

The aqueous speciation distribution of uranium was calculated in the sulfate leach slurry and
represented in Fig. 8. The results showed that the complexes of UO2SO4, UO2(SO4)2- were the
predominant species in the pH range 0 – 6. At near neutral and alkaline pH conditions, U-hydroxide
complexes start to dominate the aqueous phase. At pH 7, the UO2(OH)2.H2O(C) became the main
species. At pH 12, UO2(OH)3- became the predominant species. The formation of UO2(OH)42- species
started to grow after pH 10.

Fig. (8): Predicted aqueous speciation of U(VI) by Hydra-MEDUSA, a chemical

equilibrium calculation program

At the working leach slurry pH (1.1), the expected uranium species are UO2(SO4)2- and
UO2SO4. Accordingly the predictable extraction mechanisms of uranium by use Tri-butyl amine
(TBA) were anionic or neutral as follows: (18-20);
(R4NH)2SO4 + UO2(SO4)22- = (R4NH)2UO2 (SO4)2 +SO42- (5)
or
(R3NH)2SO4 + UO2SO4 = (R3NH)2UO2(SO4)2 (6)

4. Uranium Stripping
Uranium stripping from the working solvent (TBA) which was obtained by applying the above
mentioned conditions and an assay of 0.978 gU/l. The effects of the following factors, namely,
stripping agent, concentration of the stripping agent, shaking time and organic/aqueous phase ratios
were investigated.
4.1. Effect of Stripping Agent
The following stripping agents, namely; H2SO4, Na2CO3, HCl, HNO3 and H2O were studied.
The latter mentioned stripping agents (1 M each) was shacked with the working solvent with
aqueous/organic phase ratio of 2/1 for 30 min. shaking time. From the obtained results plotted in Fig.
(9) it was found that, sulfuric acid could be choiced as a suitable stripping agent.

772
 M. M. Ali, et al. Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl, Vol 50, 3, 217-228 (2017)

50
Uranium stripping efficiency, %
40

30

20

10

0
H2SO4
H2SO4 Na2CO3
Na2CO4 HCl
HCl HNO3
HNO3 H2O
H2O
Stripping agent type

Fig. (9): Effect of some stripping agents upon uranium stripping efficiency from the working
solvent (stripping agents conc., 1 M, aqueous/organic phase ratio of 2/1 and 30 min.
shaking time)

4.2. Effect of Stripping Agent Concentration

To study the effect of stripping agent concentration, a series of stripping experiments were
performed by shaking different concentrations of sulfuric acid ranging from 1 up to 9 M. with the
working solvent, at an aqueous/organic phase ratio of 2/1, for 30 min. shaking time. From the obtained
results (Fig. 9), it is obvious that stripping efficiency increases from about 47 to 96% at a sulfuric acid
concentration of 1 to 9 M sulfuric acid respectively. In other words, a relatively strong sulfuric acid is
quite sufficient to strip more than 96% of the loaded uranium.
100
Uranium stripping efficiency, %

90

80

70

60

50

40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
H2SO4, M

Fig. (9): Effect of sulfuric acid concentration upon uranium stripping from the working solvent
(stripping agents type H2SO4, aqueous/organic phase ratio of 2/1 for 30 min. shaking time)

4.3. Effect of Shaking Time upon Uranium Stripping Efficiency

For studying the effect of shaking time on uranium stripping from the uranium-working solvent,
a series of stripping experiments were performed using time intervals varying from 5 up to 60 minutes.
The performed experiments were carried out using a fixed sulfuric acid concentration of 9 M and 2/1
A/O ratio. The obtained results indicate that 30 minutes contact time would be quite sufficient for
stripping about 96% of uranium from the working solvent (Fig. 10).

772
 M. M. Ali, et al. Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl, Vol 50, 3, 217-228 (2017)

100

Uranium Stripping efficiency, %

95

90

85

80

75
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Shaking time, min.

Fig (10): Effect of shaking time upon uranium stripping from the loaded solvent (stripping
agents type H2SO4, stripping agents conc. 9M aqueous/organic phase ratio of 2/1)

4.4. Effect of O/A Phase Ratio upon Uranium Stripping Efficiency, and Construction of McCabe
Thiele Stripping Diagram
In order to study the effect of the phase ratio on uranium stripping efficiency from the uranium-
loaded TBA a sample was prepared by SIP extraction of uranium from Gattar granite GII diluted
leaching slurry and a series of stripping experiments were performed using O/A ratios ranging from
4/1 down to 1/4. In these experiments, the other stripping conditions were fixed at 9 M sulfuric acid
for 30 min shaking time. The obtained data (Table 1) were used to construct the equilibrium isotherm
in the McCabe Thiele diagram (21, 22), (Fig.11). The latter was used to calculate the theoretical stages
required for almost complete uranium stripping from the uranium-loaded solvent sample of Gattar
granite GII diluted leaching slurry. From the constructed diagram, it is obvious that an almost three
theoretical stages are required for the removal of almost all uranium from the working solvent sample
obtained from sample of Gattar granite GII diluted leaching slurry at the operating line slope of 1.

Table (1): Effect of O/A phase ratio upon uranium stripping efficiencyfrom the
uranium loaded solvent of Gattar granite GII diluted slurry sample

U Conc., mg/l
O/A
Sao Stripping eff.., %
Ratio
Org. Aq.

4/1 788 760 0.96 19.41

3/1 731 740 1.01 25.22
2/1 618 720 1.16 36.80
1/1 280 698 2.49 71.37
1/2 60 465 7.75 95.09
1/3 37.5 313.5 8.36 96.01
1/4 10.7 241.8 22.59 98.56

772
 M. M. Ali, et al. Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl, Vol 50, 3, 217-228 (2017)

900

800

700 1
Uranium concentration in

600
aqueous phase, ppm

500
2
400 1

300

200
3
100

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Uranium concentration in organic phase, ppm

Fig. (11): McCabe-Thiele Diagram of uranium stripping from the working (TBA) solvent

CONCLUSION
Considering the preferred conditions for extraction of uranium from Gattar granite GII leaching
slurry by applying solvent-in-pulp (SIP) deduced from the present work, about 91% of uranium could
be extracted using a solvent (TBA) concentration of 20% in kerosene, extraction time of 60 min., solid
content of 102 g/l, using glue as non-ionic hydrophilic surfactant with concentration of 100 g/l and
slurry/organic phase ratio of 4/1. About 96% of the loaded uranium on the working solvent could be
stripped using 9 M sulfuric acid as an effective striping agent at an aqueous/organic phase ratio of 4/1
for 30 min. contact time. Based on the stripping results the McCabe Thiele, uranium stripping diagram
was drawn and most of the loaded uranium could be stripped after three stripping theoretical stages.

REFERENCES
(1) Roz, M. A. "Geology and uranium mineralization of G. Gattar area north Eastern Desert, Egypt",
M. Sc. Thesis, Fac. Sc., El Azhar Univ., Cairo Egypt, 161p (1994).
(2) Sayyah, T. A. and Attawiya, M. Y. "Contribution of the mineralogy of uranium occurrence of
Gabel Gattar area Eastern Desert, Egypt" Arab. J. Nucl. Sci. Appl. Cairo, V23, No.1 p.171.184
(1990).
(3) Woody, R. J., George, D. R., "Acid leaching of uranium ores", in Uranium Ore Processing by
Clegg, J. W., Foley, D. O.: Addison wesely, Reading, Mass. 115-152. (1958).
(4) Brown, K. B., Coleman, C.F., Crouse. D. J. Blake, C. A., Ryos. A D. "Solvent extraction
processing of uranium and thorium ores", Atom. Energy, CONF.15. P. 509. (1958).
(5) Katarzyna Kiegie, Anna AbramowskaPaweł, BiełuszkaGrażyna, Zakrzewska-
KołtuniewiczStanisław and Wołkowicz. “Solvent extraction of uranium from leach solutions
obtained in processing of Polish low-grade ores” Journal of Radio analytical and Nuclear
Chemistry January, V. 311, Issue 1, pp 589–598, (2017).

772
 M. M. Ali, et al. Arab J. Nucl. Sci. Appl, Vol 50, 3, 217-228 (2017)

(6) Jyothi Rajesh Kumar, Joon-Soo Kim, Jin-Young Lee, and Ho-Sung Yoon “A Brief Review on
Solvent Extraction of Uranium from Acidic Solutions” Separation & Purification Reviews,
40:77–125, (2011).
(7) Musikas C, Schulz WW, Rydberg J, and Choppin GR “Principles and practices of solvent
extraction”. Marcel Dekker, New York, 413–447, (1992).
(8) R.W. Cattrall and SJ.E. Slater “The Extraction of Metal Ions From Aqueous Sulphate Media by
Alkylamines”. Coordination Chemistry Reviews, 11, 227-245, (1973)
(9) Kenichi Akiba and Hiroyuki Hashimo “ Extraction of uranium by a supported liquid membrane
containing mobile carrier” Talanta, V. 32, Issue 8, Part 2, 824-826 (1985).
(10) D. Van Tonder“Comparison of resin-in-pulp and direct precipitation for recovery of uranium in
alkaline leach “ CIM Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2, (2012).
(11) Campbell, M.C., Ritcey, G.M. and Gow, W.A., “Canada's uranium industry-the next decade”.
CIM Bull., 78. 139-144, (1985).
(12) Bernard H. Lucas and Ritcey G. M. “Solvent-in-Pulp Extraction” United States Patent (No.:
3,969,476), July 13, (1976).
(13) Ritcey, G.M., Slater, M.J. and Lucas, B.H., “A comparison of the processing and economics of
uranium recovery from leach slurries by continuous ion exchange or solvent extraction”. In:
D.J.I. Evans and R.S. Shoemaker (Editors), Proc. Int. Syrup. on Hydrometallurgy (Chicago).
Vol. 4, p. 419-474, (1973).
(14) Ellis, D.A., Long, R.S. and Byrne, J.B., “Entrainment studies on solvent extraction of uranium
from heavy slurries”. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on the Peaceful uses of Atomic Energy. U.N. (Geneva)
Vol. 3. 499-50, (1958).
(15) Mahfous, M. G., “Geochemistry and uranium-leaching characteristics of some younger granites-
Hammamat sediments contact zones at northern and central eastern desert, Egypt" Ain Shams
Uni., Ph.D., Thesis. 155p (2004).
(16) Marczenko, Z. "Spectrophotometric determination of elements". Halsted, a Division of John
Wiley & Sons Inc. New York, book. 643p (1976).
(17) Puigdomenech I. HYDRA (hydrochemical equilibrium-constant database) and MEDUSA (make
equilibrium diagrams using sophisticated algorithms) programs, Royal Institute of Technology,
Sweden. http://www.kemi.kth.se/medusa/
(18) Coleman, C. F., K. B. Brown, J. G. Moore, and D. J. Crouse. "Solvent Extraction with Alkyl
Amines" Ind. Eng. Chem., 50: 1756-62 (1958).
(19) McDowell and C.F. Coleman, J. Song. Nucl. Chem., 29(1967)1973.
(20) Cattrall and S.J.E. Slater “The extraction of metal ions from aqueous sulphate media by
alkylamines” Coordination chemistry reviews, 11 227-245,(1973).
(21) Ritcey, G.M., and Ashbrook, A.W., ”Solvent Extraction: Principles and Applications to Process
Metallurgy” Process Metallurgy, vol. 1, pp. 739, (1984).
(22) McCabe, W.L., Thiele, E.W., "Ind. Eng. Chem.", 17,605, (1925).

772

View publication stats