4.5 Article

Extraction of Gold and Copper from Flotation Tailings Using Glycine-Ammonia Solutions in the Presence of Permanganate

期刊

MINERALS
卷 12, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/min12050612

关键词

glycine; ammonia; non-cyanide; gold; copper; low-grade

资金

  1. Curtin University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a cyanide-free leaching method, glycine-ammonia leaching in the presence of permanganate, for treating low-grade and copper-bearing gold tailings. The addition of glycine, ammonia, and permanganate significantly enhanced gold and copper extractions. The solids content had no significant effect on copper extraction, while gold leaching kinetics was slightly better at lower solids content.
This study presents the novel idea of a cyanide-free leaching method, i.e., glycine-ammonia leaching in the presence of permanganate, to treat a low-grade and copper-bearing gold tailing. Ammonia played a key role as a pH modifier, lixiviant and potential catalyst (as cupric ammine) in this study. Replacing ammonia with other pH modifiers (i.e., sodium hydroxide or lime) made the extractions infeasibly low (<30%). The increased additions of glycine (23-93 kg/t), ammonia (30-157 kg/t) and permanganate (5-20 kg/t) enhanced gold and copper extractions considerably. Increasing the solids content from 20 to 40% did not make any obvious changes to copper extraction. However, gold leaching kinetics was slightly better at lower solids content. It was indicated that the staged addition of permanganate was unnecessary under the leaching conditions. Recovery of gold by CIL was shown to be feasible, and it improved gold extraction by 15%, but no effect was observed for copper extraction. Percentages of 76.5% gold and 64.5% copper were extracted in 48 h at 20 g/L glycine, 10 kg/t permanganate, 20 g/L carbon, pH 10.5 and 30% solids. Higher extractions could be potentially achieved by further optimization, such as by increasing permanganate addition, extending leaching time and ultra-fine grinding.

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