International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 23 (2013) 1–5

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mining Science and Technology

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

Magnetic separation studies for a low grade siliceous iron ore sample
Dwari Ranjan Kumar, Rao Danda Srinivas ⇑, Reddy Palli Sita Ram
CSIR-Institute of Minerals and Materials Technology, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Bhubaneswar 751 013, India

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

Article history: Investigations were carried out, on a low grade siliceous iron ore sample by magnetic separation, to
Received 2 May 2012 establish its amenability for physical beneficiation. Mineralogical studies revealed that the sample con-
Received in revised form 3 June 2012 sists of magnetite, hematite and goethite as major opaque oxide minerals where as silicates as well as
Accepted 1 July 2012
carbonates form the gangue minerals in the sample. Processes involving combination of classification,
Available online 8 February 2013
dry magnetic separation and wet magnetic separation were carried out to upgrade the low grade sili-
ceous iron ore sample to make it suitable as a marketable product. The sample was first ground and each
Keywords:
closed size sieve fractions were subjected to dry magnetic separation and it was observed that limited
Iron ore
Magnetite
upgradation is possible. The ground sample was subjected to different finer sizes and separated by wet
Characterization low intensity magnetic separator. It was possible to obtain a magnetic concentrate of 67% Fe by recover-
Dry and wet magnetic separation ing 90% of iron values at below 200 lm size.
Ó 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.

1. Introduction raised about which separation technique is most appropriate for

Magnetic separation is an important beneficiation process and
is usually adopted for ores of manganese, phosphate, titanium,
chrome, tungsten, molybdenum, nickel, bauxite and niobium-tan-
talum ores in addition to iron ores [1–15]. Magnetic separation
methods were also carried out for the ferrochrome industry wastes
such as the flue dust to find out the possibilities of partial recycling
and or for the recovery of metal and chromite of significant value
[16]. Magnetic separation is a simple, inexpensive, non-destructive
and rapid means of concentrating iron-bearing minerals to nearly
monomineralic levels, particularly those present in different pro-
portions in clays. The use of variable magnetic flux density further
allows sub-fractionation of the iron-bearing minerals [17]. The
selection of magnetic separation techniques depends on many pro-
cessing factors, such as assemblage of minerals, their liberation
size, and their corresponding magnetic susceptibility in addition
to production, marketing and environmentally friendly issues.
Magnetic treatment of ores and industrial minerals is conducted
in both wet and dry modes. The dry magnetic separation process
only enables purification where as in the wet process the end prod-
uct results in the form of slurry. The former especially applies
when dealing with material with finer particle sizes. Many mineral
processing industries want to purify the magnetic minerals from
the non-magnetic portions by using the dry magnetic separation
techniques. The wet and dry magnetic separation process has spe-
cific advantages as well as disadvantages. Questions are often
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 6742379476.
E-mail address: dsrao@immt.res.in (D.S. Rao).
a particular ore type or operation. The most suitable solution is
commonly determined by the required specifications of the end
product or a clean marketable product. The dry magnetic separa-
tion techniques applied based on a number of reasons such as (i)
local availability of water, (ii) cost of drying, (iii) demands of the
end customer and (iv) ever changing environmental issues. With
dry methods care must also be taken to ensure control of dust haz-
ard, an expensive precaution both in capital and operating costs.
Furthermore, dry separators have considerably lower throughputs
than wet machines. Dry separators frequently yield excellent sep-
aration of materials coarser than 75 lm. On the other hand, on an
unsized material containing large portions of fines, the wet process
is the only acceptable one. Generally, dry magnetic separation is
used when relatively large volume of non-magnetic substances is
usually the commercial products and the amount of magnetic
materials removed is quiet small. Considerable advantages must,
therefore, be offered by dry separation techniques to justify its
use in preference to wet process. This present paper discusses both
the dry and wet magnetic separation techniques used for process-
ing of a low grade siliceous iron ore sample.
2. Materials and methods
About 500 kg of a low grade siliceous iron ore sample was
crushed to below 10 mm size by using jaw crusher. The crushed
sample was thoroughly mixed and subjected for sampling by con-
ing and quartering technique to prepare representative samples.
These representative samples were used for different laboratory
investigations. Dry magnetic separation method was adopted

2095-2686/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of China University of Mining & Technology.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmst.2013.01.001
2 R.K. Dwari et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 23 (2013) 1–5

Table 1 sults indicate that the Fe content of magnetite ore is 43.5%. The
Chemical analysis of bulk sample. major impurity present in the ore is silica containing about 17% fol-
Element Fe SiO2 Al2O3 CaO MgO P Mn lowed by Al2O3, CaO, MgO which are 6%, 10% and 3%, respectively.
Weight (%) 43.5 16.84 5.61 9.97 3.21 0.04 0.02 P and Mn content in this sample is very negligible amount.

3.2. Size and size wise chemical analysis

Table 2 The 10 mm crushed bulk sample was subjected to size classi-

Size and iron distribution of different size fractions. fication using dry sieving method up to 0.500 mm using 6, 3, 2, 1,
0.850, 0.500 mm screens and then wet sieving method using 0.300,
Classification size (mm) Weight (%) Fe (%)
0.210, 0.100 mm screens. All the size fractions were analyzed for Fe
10 to +6 15.17 42.50
content. The weight (%) and Fe (%) of different size fractions are gi-
6 to +3 13.75 43.60
3 to +2 17.55 41.55 ven in Table 2. The Fe values are uniformly present in all the size
2 to +1 9.34 40.58 fractions up till 0.85 mm size fraction afterwards the iron content
1 to +0.850 5.20 41.53 increases and highest amount was found in 0.100 mm size
0.850 to +0.500 7.29 42.34 fraction.
0.500 to +0.300 3.36 44.70
0.300 to +0.210 6.62 47.46
0.210 to +0.100 7.19 47.00 3.3. Mineralogical characterisation studies
0.100 14.53 48.00
Head 100 43.76 The sample contains both dark colure as well as light colored
minerals (Fig. 1). The majority of the light colored minerals are sil-
icate gangue minerals. However, some of the dark colored minerals
using dry PERMROLL magnetic separator supplied M/S Ore Sorters are also silicates (pyroxenes). Megascopic studies indicated that
Limited, Australia. A low intensity wet magnetic separation meth- the iron ore minerals are present in the silicates and vice versa
od was adopted using SALA wet drum separator supplied by M/s (Fig. 1). Reflected light microscopic studies polish sections of hand
Sala International Sweden for these studies. Mineralogical studies specimens revealed that the sample mostly contains iron mineral
were carried out using Leitz optical microscope to identify oxide phases like magnetite, hematite, goethite and other gangue miner-
and silicate/gangue minerals present in the sample. als (Fig. 2). The gangue minerals are mostly of two different types
such as silicates and carbonates (Fig. 3). Liberation studies on the
3. Characterization studies sieve fractions indicated that the magnetite grains can have an
optimum liberation below 100 lm.
3.1. Physical and chemical characterization
4. Beneficiation studies
The sample is hard, tough and magnetic in nature. The bulk
density and angle of repose of 10 mm bulk sample is measured 4.1. Dry magnetic separation studies
to be 3204 kg/m3 and 43.90°, respectively. The detailed chemical
characterization of bulk magnetite sample was carried out using Beneficiation studies were under taken by using magnetic sep-
conventional wet chemical analysis methods. The chemical analy- aration techniques in order to achieve the desired grade of concen-
sis results of bulk magnetite sample are given in Table 1. The re- trate with appreciable weight recovery since the present iron ore is

Fig. 1. Stereomicroscope photomicrographs: (a) magnetite bands (dark) with in gangues (white) some time gangues contain inclusions of magnetite (shown by arrow); (b)
some time gangues contain inclusions of magnetite (dark); (c) gangues (white) contain islands of magnetite (dark); (d) magnetite (dark) contains islands of gangues (white).

Fig. 2. Reflected light photomicrographs: (a) euhedral grains gangues (G) with in hematite (H) and the gangues show wide size ranges; (b) hematite (H) grains within the
gangues (G) and the hematite (H) grains in turn contain islands of gangues; (c) minute grains of magnetite (M) within the gangues (G) and the gangues are enclosed within
the hematite (H); (d) lath shapes magnetite (M) within the hematite (H).
 R.K. Dwari et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 23 (2013) 1–5 3

Fig. 3. Reflected light photomicrographs of the sieve classified fractions which indicate that the optimum liberation can be achieved below 100 lm.

Table 3
Results of dry magnetic separation studies of classified ore.

Size fraction Detail Weight (%) Fe (%) Fe recovery (%)

Dry magnetic separation of 10 to +6 mm size fraction Magnetic fraction 72.82 52.08 89.2
Middling 4.85 35.88 4.1
Nonmagnetic fraction 22.33 12.70 6.7
Head (feed) 100.00 42.50 100.0
Dry magnetic separation of 6 to +3 mm size fraction Magnetic fraction 69.61 52.49 83.8
Middling 9.80 43.70 9.8
Nonmagnetic fraction 20.69 13.54 6.4
Head (feed) 100.00 43.60 100.0
Dry magnetic separation of 3 to +2 mm size fraction Magnetic fraction 57.84 53.05 73.8
Middling 20.59 40.35 20.0
Nonmagnetic fraction 21.57 11.86 6.2
Head (feed) 100.00 41.55 100.0
Dry magnetic separation of 2 to +1 mm size fraction Magnetic fraction 62.00 52.77 80.6
Middling 11.00 34.20 9.3
Nonmagnetic fraction 27.00 15.21 10.1
Head (feed) 100.00 40.58 100.0
Dry magnetic separation of 1 to +0.850 mm size fraction Magnetic fraction 68.42 52.91 87.2
Middling 9.21 24.99 5.5
Nonmagnetic fraction 22.37 13.54 7.3
Head (feed) 100.00 41.53 100.0
Dry magnetic separation of 0.850 to +500 mm size fraction Magnetic fraction 65.79 54.31 84.4
Middling 14.47 26.80 9.2
Nonmagnetic fraction 19.74 13.82 6.4
Head (feed) 100.00 42.34 100.0
Dry magnetic separation of 0.500 to +0.300 mm size fraction Magnetic fraction 52.98 59.48 70.8
Middling 13.91 50.26 15.7
Nonmagnetic fraction 33.11 18.14 13.5
Head (feed) 100.00 44.50 100.0
Dry magnetic separation of 0.300 to +0.210 mm size fraction Magnetic fraction 53.33 60.03 67.4
Middling 14.67 47.47 14.7
Nonmagnetic fraction 32.00 26.52 17.9
Head (feed) 100.00 47.46 100.0

Table 4
Dry magnetic separation of bulk samples.

Bulk sample Detail Weight (%) Fe (%) Fe recovery (%)

Dry magnetic separation of 1 to +0.300 mm bulk sample Magnetic fraction 68.34 51.94 88.0
Middling 9.04 23.32 5.2
Nonmagnetic fraction 22.62 12.15 6.8
Head (feed) 100.00 40.35 100.0
Dry magnetic separation of 0.300 mm bulk sample Magnetic fraction 86.30 50.96 95.3
Middling 4.10 19.83 1.8
Nonmagnetic fraction 9.60 13.86 2.9
Head (feed) 100.00 46.13 100.0

magnetite. The 10 mm bulk magnetite ore was classified into dif-
ferent size fractions and each size fraction was subjected to dry
PERMROLL magnetic separator supplied M/S Ore Sorters Limited,
Australia. The sample was continuously fed through the hopper
by vibratory feeder and passed through the magnetic belt. The per-
manent magnetic intensity of the roller used for separation is in
the range of 800–1000 gauss. The results of the beneficiation stud-
ies are presented in Table 3. These tables indicate that the coarser
size fractions up to 0.500 mm can be separated by this technique. It
is possible to increase the iron content of the ore from 42% to 53%
Fe by using dry magnetic separator. In these fractions the Fe recov-
ery is in the range of 80–89% and yield is in the range of 60–70%. In
4 R.K. Dwari et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 23 (2013) 1–5

Table 5 to wet low intensity magnetic separation since dry magnetic sep-
Low intensity wet magnetic separation of 0.200 mm bulk sample (sample size aration is not efficient for the separation of present sample at finer
200 lm, feed rate 10.0 kg/h, percent solids in feed 20.0%, wash water 2 L/m) (%).
size fractions. Accordingly, the bulk sample was ground to different
Detail Weight Fe Fe recovery sizes such as 0.200, 0.100 and 0.075 mm and subjected to low
Magnetic fraction 63.15 66.04 88.0 intensity wet magnetic separation. SALA wet drum separator sup-
Nonmagnetic fraction 36.85 15.36 12.0 plied by M/s Sala International Sweden was used for these studies.
Head (feed) 100.00 47.36 100.0 The magnetic intensity used in all the cases was in the range of
1800–2000 gauss. The results thus obtained are given in Tables
5–7, respectively. It can be observed from the Table 5 that it is pos-
sible to achieve a concentrate with 66% Fe with 88% Fe recovery at
Table 6 yield of 63.15% for 0.200 mm size sample. With further size
Low intensity wet magnetic separation of 0.100 mm bulk sample (sample size reduction as in the case of Tables 6 and 7, it is possible to achieve
100 lm, feed rate 10.0 kg/h, percent solids in feed 20.0%, wash water 2 L/m) (%). concentrate with 69% Fe at 88% Fe recovery with yield of 58%. The
Detail Weight Fe Fe recovery result clearly indicates that much better separation is achievable
with low intensity wet magnetic separation at finer sizes.
Magnetic fraction 61.63 69.11 88.3
Nonmagnetic fraction 38.37 14.66 11.7 It is clear from the results that wet low intensity magnetic sep-
Head (feed) 100.00 48.21 100.0 arator has given better performance after grinding the sample to
finer sizes ( 200 lm). Most of the magnetite present in the sample
can be recovered as good grade iron fines with more than 66.0% Fe
in the concentrate. Around 88% of iron values present in the sample
Table 7 can be recovered by this technique. It is interesting to note here
Low intensity wet magnetic separation of 0.075 mm bulk sample (sample size that the rejects contain around 15% Fe only. The results of different
75 lm, feed rate 10.0 kg/h, percent solids in feed 20.0%, wash water 2 L/m) (%). particle sizes by low intensity wet magnetic separator are com-
Detail Weight Fe Fe recovery pared in Table 8. The results indicate that better results are ob-
served by grinding the sample to below 100 lm and further
Magnetic fraction 58.47 69.39 87.3
Nonmagnetic fraction 41.53 14.24 12.7 improvement is not noticed by further grinning to 75 lm. The par-
Head (feed) 100.00 46.48 100.0 ticle size of 100 lm may be ideal for this type of sample in point of
commercialization of the process.

Table 8 5. Conclusions
Effect of particle size by low intensity wet magnetic separator (%).

Particle size (lm) Product Reject The investigations carried out on the low grade iron ore sample
Weight Fe Weight Fe reveal the following conclusions.
200 63.15 66.04 36.85 15.36
100 61.63 69.11 38.37 14.66
(1) The sample on average contains 43.8% Fe, 16.8% SiO2 and
75 58.47 69.39 41.53 14.24 5.61% Al2O3.
Feed 100 47.36 (2) The mineralogical studies indicate that the major iron min-
erals are magnetite, hematite and goethite. And the gangue
case of finer size fractions such as 0.500 to +0.300 mm, it is pos- minerals are silicates and calcites. The complete liberation
sible to increase the iron values from 44% to 60%. In this case the Fe of magnetite occur around 100 lm size.
recovery and yield is 70% and 52% respectively. It is possible to pro- (3) A detail beneficiation studies on different closed size frac-
duce magnetic concentrate for the size fraction 0.300 to tions by dry magnetic separation have met with limited suc-
+0.210 mm containing 60.03% Fe with 53.33% weight recovery by cess. Commercial grade concentrate could not be generated
dry magnetic separation. The increase in iron values in case of finer by dry magnetic separation even at finer sizes.
size fractions is due to an increase in liberation. But the separation (4) Wet magnetic separator at low magnetic intensity indicates
efficiency is reduced due to finer size by dry method. The results that a concentrate with more than 66.0% Fe could be pro-
obtained by high intensity (8000 gauss) Perm Roll separator are duced after grinding the sample to below 200 lm. However,
very poor as all the particles were dragged into the magnetic con- better grade concentrate with 69.0% Fe can be achieved at
centrate zone. 100 lm size but the recoveries are slightly low.
In order to understand the effect of liberation on low intensity (5) In conclusion, the low grade magnetite sample is responding
dry magnetic separation, the bulk sample is ground to 1 mm size well for simple technique like magnetic separation. Com-
and classified into two fractions using 0.300 mm screen. The clas- mercial grade concentrate can be produced by simple flow
sified 1 to +0.300 mm and 0.300 mm size fractions were sub- sheet involving, crushing, grinding and magnetic separation.
jected to low intensity dry magnetic separation and the results A product with 67.0% Fe could be achieved at 54.5% yield by
obtained are given in Table 4, respectively. The results clearly indi- recovering 83.0% of iron values present in the sample. Both
cate that the dry separation is not efficient in separating at finer yield and grade can be improved by grinding the sample to
sizes. The required grade could not be achieved even at finer sizes 200 lm and separation by low wet intensity magnetic
due to inefficiency of dry separation. separator.

4.2. Wet magnetic separation studies

Characterization and liberation studies reveal that the maxi-
mum liberation is observed at around 100 lm and hence the bulk
sample is required to be ground to finer sizes for complete libera-
tion. It is proposed to grind the sample to finer sizes and subjected
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to Prof. B.K. Mishra, director, CSIR-
Institute of Minerals and Materials Technology, Bhubaneswar,
Odisha for his kind permission to publish this paper.
 R.K. Dwari et al. / International Journal of Mining Science and Technology 23 (2013) 1–5 5

References [9] Dey S, Bhagat RP, Kunwar RK, Rao DS, Banerjee B, Maulik SC. Comparative
studies on beneficiation of bauxite samples for application in refractory
industry. Met Mater Process 2001;13(1):1–8.
[1] Roe LA. Advances in magnetic separation of ores. Min Eng 1958:1261–5.
[10] Arol AI, Aydogan A. Recovery enhancement of magnetite fines in magnetic
[2] Bartnik JA, Zabel WH, Hopstock DM. On the production of iron ore
separation. Colloids Surf A: Physicochem Eng Aspects 2004;232(2–3):151–4.
superconcentrates by high-intensity wet magnetic separation. Int J Miner
[11] Koshkalda AN, Sukinova NV, Ivashchenko VV, Kovalenkova EYu. Intensifying
Process 1975;2(2):117–26.
the dry magnetic beneficiation of iron ores. Metallurgist 2007;51(7–8):417–9.
[3] Piga L, Marruzzo G. Preconcentration of an Italian talk by magnetic separation
[12] Dobbin M, Domenico J, Dunn P. A discussion on magnetic separation
and attrition. Int J Min Process 1992;35(3–4):291–7.
techniques for concentrating ilmenite and chromite ores. In: The 6th
[4] Paulo M, Fontes F. Iron oxide and clay mineral association in Brazilian oxisols:
international heavy minerals conference, South African; 2007. p. 197–203.
a magnetic separation study. Clays Clay Miner 1992;40(2):175–9.
[13] Mishra PP, Mohapatra BK, Mahanta K. Upgradation of low grade siliceous
[5] Maliy VM, Bogdanova IP. High intensity magnetic separation of limonite ores.
manganese ore from Bonai-Keonjhar belt, Orissa, India. J Miner Mater Charact
Magn Electr Sep 1992;4:47–59.
Eng 2009;8(1):47–56.
[6] Mohapatra BK, Rao DS, Sahoo RK. Characterisation and magnetic separation
[14] Das B, Mishra BK, Prakash S, Das SK, Reddy, Angadi SI. Magnetic and flotation
studies of Chikla manganese ores, Maharastra. Indian Min Eng J
studies of banded hematite quartzite (BHQ) ore for the production of pellet
1995;34(7):37–42.
grade concentrate. Int J Miner Metall Mater 2010;17(6):675–82.
[7] Rao RB, Besra LD, Reddy BR, Banerjee GN. The effect of pretreatment on
[15] Kelland DR. High gradient magnetic separation applied to mineral
magnetic separation of ferruginous minerals in bauxite. Magn Electr Sep
beneficiation. IEEE Trans Mag 1973;9(3):307–10.
1997;8(2):115–23.
[16] Rao DS, Angadi SI, Muduli SD, Nayak BD. Recovery of chromite values from the
[8] Prakash S, Das B, Mohapatra BK, Venugopal R. Recovery of iron values from
ferro-chrome industry flue dust. A T Miner Process 2010;51(12):56–63.
iron ore slimes by selective magnetic coating. Sep Sci Technol
[17] Ghabru SK, St. Arnaud RJ, Mermut AR. Use of high gradient magnetic
2000;35(16):2651.
separation in detailed clay mineral studies. Can J Soil Sci 1988;68(3):645–55.