UNIVERSITY OF MINES AND TECHNOLOGY (UMAT),

TARKWA.
FACULTY OF MINERAL RESOURCES TECHNOLOGY (FMRT).
MINERALS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

A REPORT ON A LAB WORK FOR GRINDABILITY AND LEACHING TESTS

BY
AARON NANA YAW SMART
BS414107620
MR 2
……………………….
LECTURER
MR. EMMANUEL ABOTAR

PROJECT SUPERVISOR
MR. NELSON DONKOR

TARKWA, GHANA
SEPTEMBER 2022

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

DECLARATION i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.0 Grindability Test 1

1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objective 1
1.3 Materials and Equipment 2

i
Declaration
I, Aaron Nana Yaw Smart declare that this report is my personal work and it is being
submitted for a complete fulfillment of the lab work and also for the Bachelor of Science
program at the Minerals Engineering Department of the University of Mines and
Technology.

Submitted this ………….day of ……..Year.

i
ABSTRACT

Particle size has an effect on leaching processes. This piece of work demonstrates the
systematic process taken to determine the size most suitable for optimum recovery
from a refractory gold ore. The report also seeks to expose the machines used and
precautions taken at each stage to achieve a safe and desirable results. Conclusions
were summed up with observations and recommendations based on data analysis.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I thank the almighty God for giving me the strength and seeing me through my time
at the minerals engineering lab.

I also give thanks to my lecturer, Mr Emmanuel Abotar for giving the opportunity to
partake in this lab work. A very big thank you to Mr Nelson Donkor, my supervisor
for the assistance he offered me during my work.

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 A GRAPH OF GRINDABILITY TEST .............................................................4

Figure 2.2 A GRAPH OF RECOVERY AGAINST LEACHING TIME FOR 150µm.......5
Figure 2.3 A GRAPH OF RECOVERY AGAINST LEACHING TIME FOR 106µm......6

vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 2.1 sieve analysis for 5 minutes grind time..............................................................4
Table 2.2 sieve analysis for 10 minutes grind time...............................................................5
Table 3 2.3 sieve analysis for 15 minutes grind time............................................................6
Table 4 2.4 grindability test...................................................................................................7
Table 5 2.5 cyanidation recovery for 150µm........................................................................7
Table 6 3.1 cyanidation recovery for 106µm......................................................................10
Table 7 3.2 moisture content...............................................................................................11

vi
iii
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 GRINDABILITY TEST

Assaying in metallurgy is the process of determining the type of mineral in an ore and how
to recover it.Gold( Au), the pivot mineral in this piece is an element belonging to group 11
and period 6 of the periodic table. It has exceptional qualities including its
indestructibility, highly malleable, very colourful and bright which makes it a highly
perceived mineral. Different gold ores are treated differently based on its refractoriness.
The non-refractory ores need no leaching processes since the gold is already liberated.
Refractory ores however undergo pre-treatment and leaching processes after the mineral is
liberated through comminution

1.1 BACKGROUND

Gold Mining Companies generally face challenges regarding fluctuations in cyanidation

recovery, which comes up any time grind size changes. You have been contacted as a
consultant to assist with the authentication of the above claim, and make
recommendations.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

1. To demonstrate the effect of particle size in leaching

2. To recommend the grind size for optimum recovery
3. To demonstrate the time for high recovery

1
1.3 MaterialS and Equipment
 Four bulk samples supplied by the technician
 Jaw crusher
 Cone crusher
 Roll crusher
 Test sieve and vibrator
 Grinding machine
 Reagent Grade Chemicals( cyanide, lime ,silver nitrate, Rhodamine)
 Jones Riffle splitter
 Stop watch
 pH meter
 Glassware
 All other materials/equipment necessary for the work
1.4 Procedure
Part One-Sampling (Sample Extraction)
 A 4 kg representative sample was taken from each of the bulk samples making a
total of 8 kg
 The individual samples were mixed to form one composite sample

Part Two-Crushing and Sample dividing technique

 The Sample was crushed manually to obtain suitable feed size for crushers
 Sample was then crushed sequentially using Jaw, cone, and roll crushers to achieve
2 mm
 The Jones riffle sampler was used to divide the sample into 2 (A and B).
 Two 50 g sample from A was taken for head-grade determination using acid
digestion

Part Three-Grinding and Grindability Test

 Three 1 kg samples were taken from A to constitute samples (C, D, and E).
Samples C, D, and E were ground (dry grinding) for 5, 10, 15 minutes
respectively.
 A nest of sieves containing 106 µm and 150 µm was used to screen each sample.
 The weight (and percentage) of material passing each of sieves were recorded for
each of the grinding periods.
 A graph of percent passing each sieve against grinding time was drawn.
 The time required to grind to 80 % passing 106 µm and 150 µm was determined
 CHAPTER 2
SIEVE ANALYSIS DATA

The sieve analysis was constructed for samples C, D and E to determine the percent
passing and oversize for each of the three grind times i.e. 5, 10 and 15 minutes
respectively. It can be deduced from the data that the sum was cumulative for both percent
passing and oversize. A 1 kg sample was used for this data analysis and due to external
factors some of the particles were blown off and ended up with 990.92g. Below are the
data for the sieve analysis at each time. The Tyler’s series was used to construct the
screens. The screen for each data analysis started from the 2mm through to the 106µm
screen.
2.1 Data set for sample C ( C = 5 minutes )
Table 1 2.1 sieve analysis for 5 minutes grind time

SCREEN OVERSIZE %OVERSIZE CUMMULATIVE %OVERSIZE CUMMULATIVE %PASSING

4 0 0 0 100
2.8 0 0 0 100
2.36 0 0 0 100
2 0 0 0 100
1.7 0.49 0.09889799 0.098897994 99.90110201
0.85 2.18 0.43999516 0.53889315 99.46110685
0.6 2.84 0.5732047 1.112097848 98.88790215
0.475 16.73 3.37666007 4.488757922 95.51124208
0.25 77.54 15.6501029 20.13886086 79.86113914
0.212 59.85 12.0796835 32.21854438 67.78145562
0.15 52.31 10.5578654 42.7764098 57.2235902
0.106 73.54 14.8427724 57.61918217 42.38081783
0 209.98 42.3808178 100 0
TOTAL 495.46 100
Figure 2.1 A PLOT OF CUMMULATIVE %PASSING AGAINST THE SCREEN
120

100
CUM MULATIVE UNDERSIZE

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
SCREEN
2.2 Data set for Sample D ( D = 10 minutes )
Table 2.2 sieve analysis for 10 minutes grind time
SCREEN OVERSIZE %OVERSIZE CUMMULATIVE %OVERSIZE CUMMULATIVE %PASSING
4 0 0 0 100
2.8 0 0 0 100
2.36 0 0 0 100
2 0 0 0 100
1.7 0.12 0.02423312 0.024233123 99.97576688
0.85 1.76 0.35541913 0.379652255 99.62034775
0.6 0.39 0.07875765 0.458409903 99.5415901
0.475 1.44 0.29079747 0.749207375 99.25079263
0.25 13.28 2.68179891 3.43100628 96.56899372
0.212 32.4 6.54294311 9.973949393 90.02605061
0.15 59.84 12.0842505 22.05819988 77.94180012
0.106 89.01 17.9749187 40.0331186 59.9668814
0 296.95 59.9668814 100 0
TOTAL 495.19 100

Figure 1.2 A GRAPH OF CUMMULATIVE %PASSING AGAINST SCREEN

120

100
CUM M ULATIVE %PASSING

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
SCREEN
2.3 Data set for Sample E ( E = 15 minutes )
Table 3 2.3 sieve analysis for 15 minutes grind time

SCREEN OVERSIZE %OVERSIZE CUMMULATIVE % OVERSIZE CUMMULATIVE %PASSING

4 0 0 0 100
2.8 0 0 0 100
2.36 0 0 0 100
2 0 0 0 100
1.7 0 0 0 100
0.85 0.1 0.0202192 0.020219176 99.97978082
0.6 0.5 0.1010959 0.121315055 99.87868494
0.475 0.73 0.1476 0.268915039 99.73108496
0.25 4.66 0.9422136 1.211128634 98.78887137
0.212 10.93 2.2099559 3.421084557 96.57891544
0.15 44.45 8.9874237 12.40850823 87.59149177
0.106 64.13 12.966557 25.37506571 74.62493429
0 369.08 74.624934 100 0
TOTAL 494.58 100

Figure 2.3 A GRAPH OF CUMMULATIVE PERCENT AGAINST SCREEN

120

100
CUMMULATIVE %PASSING

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
SCREEN
2.4 Data set for 106 µm and 150 µm
Table 4 2.4 GRAPH FOR 106 µm and 150 µm

GRINDING TIME(MIN) CUMM% UNDERSIZE(150µ) CUMM% UNDERSIZE(106µ) CUMM% UNDERSIZE(212µ)

0 22.124 15.1 30.488
5 57.22 42.38 67.78
10 77.94 59.97 90.026
15 87.59 74.62 96.58
16 97.2 82.663 98.7
Table 5 2.5 below shows 80% Passing Screen and Grind Time

80 % Passing Screen Grind Time

150 10.8
106 15.6
Figure 2.4 A GRANDABILITY GRAPH OF CUMMULATIVE PASSING FOR
150µ, 106µ AND 212µ AGAINST TIME (MINS)

120

100
CUMMULATIVE% PAS S ING

80 CUMM% UNDERSIZE(150µ)
CUMM% UNDERSIZE(106µ)
60 CUMM% UNDERSIZE(212µ)

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
TIME(mins)
CHAPTER 3

Cyanidation Test
3.0 Purpose:
 To determine the leachability of the sample being analysed so that we can predict
the rate of leaching.

3.1 Equipment:

 pH meter, filter paper, funnel, beakers, stirrer (spoon), measuring cylinder, AAS
sample bottles, container, rake, electronic balance, roller machine and gallon.

3.2 Reagents Used:

 Sodium cyanide (NaCN), Calcium Carbonate (limestone powder, CaCO 3), Water,
Pulverized sample.

3.3 Procedure:

 Two portions (1 kg each) of samples B was taken and ground to 80 % passing

106 µm and 150 µm respectively to generate samples F and G. F and G were each poured
into a well labelled leaching bottle.

 Samples F and G were leached under the following conditions:

a .Cyanide strength–200 ppm

b. Pulp density-55 %
c. pH. of: F-11.23, G-11.03
d. Leaching time– 2,4,8 and 24 hr
e. Agitate on rollers
 The bottles were removed from the rollers and filtered get leachate (pregnant
solution) and filter cake (tailings)
 5 ml of pregnant solution was taken from each leachate obtained at the various
intervals (2, 4, 8 and 24 hrs) and the gold concentration was calculated by titrating
it with silver nitrate. The indicator used was Rhodamine.
 50 ml of pregnant solution was taken for AAS determination of gold concentration
 The cake was washed with water, dried and took a sample of 100 g for acid
digestion to determine gold in tails.
 The calculated head grade was determined for each of the leaching schemes.
 A graph of gold recovery against time for each of the grind size was drawn
 RESULTS, TABLES AND CALCULATIONS

3.4 Calculations for water added AND

3.4.1 CALCULATIONS FOR CYANIDE ADDED
Amount of water added Amount of cyanide added

100 %- 55 %= 45 % 1 ppm=1 mg/l

55% solids 200 ppm=200 mg/l

45% water 200 mg=1000 ml

1 ppm=1 mg/l if 1000 ml=0.2 g

200 ppm=200 mg/l 818 ml=818*0.2/1000

But 200 mg=1000 ml =0.1636 g (cyanide)

If 55 %=1 kg 0.1636 g of cyanide was added to

45%=45*1/55 each sample in the leaching bottle

=0.818 kg

But 1 g=1 ml

818 g=818 ml
 MOISTURE CONTENT

The wet weight of each sample were sundried and then weighed to determine the dry
weight.

3.4.2 Data set for samples F and G

SAMPLE CODES F G

Wet weight (g) 100 100

Dry weight (g) 96.24 97.58

Moisture content (g) 3.76 2.42

Moisture content (%) 3.76 2.42

Table 6 3.1 shows Data set for sample F and G

 3.4.3 Data set for AAS Reading for sample F and G

Time(Hrs.) Sample F-150 µm Sample G-106 µm Au in

Au in (mg/L) (mg/L)

2 0.095 0.481

4 0.406 0.642

8 0.899 0.854

24 1.06 0.921

Tails 0.101 0.019

Table 7 3.2 RESULTS OBTAINED FROM AAS READING

 3.4.3 Data set for AAS Reading for sample F and G

Time(Hrs.) Sample F-150 µm Sample G-106 µm Au in

Au in (mg/L) (mg/L)

2 0.095 0.481

4 0.406 0.642

8 0.899 0.854

24 1.06 0.921

Tails 0.101 0.019

Table 8 3.2 RESULTS OBTAINED FROM AAS READING

 3.4.4 Data set for sample F

Time, hrs. Gold in Mg of gold Gold in mg Recovery, %

solution, mg/L in 0.820 L

2 0.095 0.0779 7.2722

4 0.406 0.3329 31.0773

8 0.899 0.7372 68.82

24 1.06 0.8692 81.1426

Tailings in 1L 0.101

Tailing in 0.0101
100mL

Gold in 1kg 0.202

tailings

Total gold in 1.0712

1kg ore

Total gold in 1071.2

1tonne
Calculated head 1.0712 g/t
grade

Table 9 3.3 RESULTS OBTAINED FROM AAS READING

For F-150 µm (10.6mins.)

3.4.5 Result for sample F

RESULTS OBTAINED FROM AAS READING

SAMPLE F-150 µm (10.6mins.)

Figure 3.1 A GRAPH OF GOLD RECOVERY AGAINST LEACHING TIME

90
80

70
PERCENT RECOVERY,%

60

50
40

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
LEACHING TIME ,HRS
 3.5 AAS Reading for sample G
Table 10 3.4 RESULTS OBTAINED FROM AAS READING
SAMPLE G-106µm (15.7mins)

Time, hrs. Gold in Mg of gold in Gold in mg Recovery, %

solution, mg/L 0.820 L

2 0.481 0.394 49.685

4 0.642 0.526 66.330

8 0.854 0.700 88.272

24 0.921 0.755 95.208

Tailings in 0.019
1L

Tailings in 0.0019
100mL

Gold in 0.038
1kg tailings

Total gold 0.793

in 1kg ore
Total gold 793
in 1tonne

Calculated 0.793 g/t

head grade

3.6 Result for sample G

RESULTS OBTAINED FROM AAS READING
Sample G- 106 µm (15.7mins)

Figure 2 3.2 A GRAPH OF GOLD RECOVERY AGAINST LEACHING TIME

100
90
80
PERCENT RECOVERY,%

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
LEACHING TIME,HRS
 CHAPTER 4
PRECAUTION, OBSERVATION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
4.1 Precautions
• PPEs were worn
• The pH housekeeping was ensured of the pulp was conditioned with lime to avoid
the evolution of Hydrogen Cyanide
• Proper The appropriate

4.2Observations
 Particle size had a great effect on recovery.
 Recovery generally increased with leaching time especially for the 106 µm.
 Recovery for 212 µm reduced from 0.8 g/t to 0.5 g/t after 4 and 8 hours of leaching
respectively.
 From the graph, it can be observed that more gold would be recovered after 24 hrs.

4.3CONCLUTIONS

 Ground size and leaching time are important factors to consider in cyanidation
leaching process.
 The presence of Preg-robbers caused fluctuation in the recovery of gold between
the 4th and the 8th hours of leaching.

4.4RECOMMENDATIONS

 We recommend that ore material should be ground to 80 % passing 106 µm to

achieve optimum recovery.
 We also recommend that leaching should be done more than 24 hrs.

REFERENCING
 Anon.(2014),Methods of recovering gold II,
http://suertegold.wordpress.com/in-the- beginning-there-was-
gold-1/day-52/.Accessed: September 08,2022.
 Breuer, C.A, Meakin(2011), Hydrometallurgy,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251562442/Cyanide/mea
surement/by/silver/ nitrate. Accessed: September 8,2022.
4