4.7 Article

Bioleaching of chalcopyrite by Acidianus manzaensis under different constant pH

期刊

MINERALS ENGINEERING
卷 98, 期 -, 页码 80-89

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mineng.2016.07.019

关键词

Bioleaching; Chalcopyrite; Acidianus manzaensis; Constant pH; Synchrotron radiation; XANES

资金

  1. Large Scientific Facility Foundation of Chinese Academy of Sciences [U1232103]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1232103, 51274257]
  3. Open Funds of SSRF, Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China [14SRBL14B17938]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bioleaching of pure chalcopyrite by thermophilic Archaea strain Acidianus manzaensis YN-25 under different constant pH was first comparatively investigated. Then the relevant sulfur speciation was analyzed by synchrotron radiation based X-ray diffraction (SR-XRD) and S K-edge X-ray absorption near edge structure ()CANES) spectroscopy. The acidity of the leaching solution was monitored at 3-h intervals to make it steady at pH 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2.00, 2.25 and 2.50, respectively. Leaching results showed that the copper ion extraction increased during chemical leaching but decreased during bioleaching when pH value decreased from 2.50 to 1.25. SR-XRD analysis showed that, during bioleaching, new elemental sulfur (5) phase was detected at all tested pH cases; new jarosite phase was detected at cases of pH 1.50 to 2.50; and jarosite gradually became a major phase when pH value increased. XANES analysis further showed that covellite was detected during bioleaching at cases of pH 1.25 to 2.00 at higher redox potential (ORP) value, while chalcocite and bornite were detected at cases of pH 2.25 and 2.50 at lower ORP value. These results suggested that the formation of S was mainly accounting for hindering the dissolution of chalcopyrite while the formation of bornite could accelerate the dissolution of chalcopyrite by A. manzaensis. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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