4.5 Article

Mineralogical Prediction of Flotation Performance for a Sediment-Hosted Copper-Cobalt Sulphide Ore

期刊

MINERALS
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/min10050474

关键词

flotation modelling; mineralogy; geometallurgy; copper; cobalt; QEMSCAN

资金

  1. NERC [NE/M011372/1]
  2. NERC [NE/M011372/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As part of a study investigating the influence of mineralogical variability in a sediment hosted copper-cobalt deposit in the Democratic Republic of Congo on flotation performance, the flotation of nine sulphide ore samples was investigated through laboratory batch kinetics tests and quantitative mineral analyses. Using a range of ore samples from the same deposit the influence of mineralogy on flotation performance was studied. Characterisation of the samples through QEMSCAN showed that bornite, chalcopyrite, chalcocite and carrollite are the main copper-bearing sulphide minerals while carrollite is the only cobalt-bearing mineral. Mineralogical characteristics were averaged per sample to allow for a quantitative correlation with flotation performance parameters. Equilibrium recoveries, rate constants and final grades of the samples were correlated to the feed mineralogy through Multiple Linear Regression (MLR). Target sulphide minerals content and particle size, magnesiochlorite content, carrollite liberation and association of the copper and cobalt minerals with magnesiochlorite and dolomite were used to predict flotation performance. Leave One Out Cross Validation (LOOCV) revealed that the final copper and cobalt grades are predicted with an R-2 of 0.80 and 0.93 and Root Mean Square Error of Cross Validation (RMSECV) of 4.41% and 1.34%. The recovery of cobalt and copper with time can be predicted with an R-2 of 0.94 for both and an overall test error of 4.70% and 5.14%. Overall, it was shown that quantitative understanding of changes in mineralogy allows for prediction of changes in flotation performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据