4.1 Article

Copper ore density separations by float/sink in a dry sand fluidised bed dense medium

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MINERAL PROCESSING
Volume 121, Issue -, Pages 12-20

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.minpro.2013.02.008

Keywords

Copper ore; Dry processing; Fluid bed

Funding

  1. New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) of Japan
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [18004]
  3. Australian Research Council
  4. AMIRA International
  5. BHP Billiton
  6. Rio Tinto
  7. Orica
  8. Anglo Platinum
  9. Xstrata
  10. Freeport McMoran
  11. AREVA NC through the Australian Minerals Science Research Institute (AMSRI) [LP0667828]
  12. Australian Academy of Science
  13. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  14. Australian Research Council [LP0667828] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two types of copper ore have been separated based on density by float/sink in a dry sand fluidised bed dense medium. This is the first report of dry separation of lump copper ores using a dry sand fluidised bed dense medium. The separation point density and the separation efficiency, characterised by the probable error, can be controlled by changing the amount of different density sand particles in the medium mixture and the fluidisation air velocity. It has been shown that separation point densities between about 2200 and 3700 kg/m(3) with probable errors typically in the range of 0.01 to 0.06 can be obtained. Ores with particles in the size range of between about 10 and 25 mm can be treated. Depending on the ore mass-density distribution and copper-density distribution, between about 20 to more than 40% of the low density ore could potentially be rejected prior to wet grinding with little loss of valuable copper. This would significantly reduce the amount of energy and water required for wet grinding and down stream processing such as flotation. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available