4.7 Article

The effect of reagents on selective flotation of smithsonite-calcite-quartz

Journal

MINERALS ENGINEERING
Volume 22, Issue 9-10, Pages 766-771

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mineng.2009.01.012

Keywords

Smithsonite; Calcite; Quartz; Microflotation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this paper the effects of sodium sulphide, sodium hexa methaphosphate (SH), sodium fluoric, starch and sodium silicate adsorption on smithsonite, quartz and calcite surfaces at various pH values, and using Armac C and oleic acid as collectors were investigated through microflotation. Also, the effects of various primary amine collectors (Armac C, Armac T, Flotigam SA, Flotigam TA and Armeen TD) were investigated for smithsonite flotation. The flotation tests were performed using purified samples from Angooran mine by the microflotation technique. The cationic flotation results showed that the maximum recovery of smithsonite could be improved to 92% using 400 g/t Armac C and 500 g/t sodium sulphide at pH 11. Also, the quartz and calcite recoveries reached 98% and 89%, respectively, at the above mentioned conditions. Moreover, using 1250 g/t SH and 1500 g/t sodium silicate as a depressant, the quartz and calcite recoveries decreased to 70% and 20%, respectively, and also the smithsonite recovery was reduced to 82%. Furthermore, the experiments showed that the behavior of sodium fluoric as a quartz depressant is similar to that of sodium silicate. Flotation results using oleic acid revealed that the maximum recovery of 90% occurs at pH 9 and 500 g/t oleic acid. Also, the quartz and calcite recoveries reached 26% and 87%, respectively, in the anionic flotation conditions. Increasing amount of sodium silicate to 2000 g/t caused a decrease in the smithsonite recovery to 87% and also decreased the calcite and quartz recoveries by 10% and 15%, respectively. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available