Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T08:49:42.883Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Study of chalcopyrite flotation in the presence of illite using a design of experiments approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2021

Hasan Ali Taner
Affiliation:
Mining Engineering Department, Konya Technical University, Konya, Turkey
Vildan Onen*
Affiliation:
Mining Engineering Department, Konya Technical University, Konya, Turkey
*
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The interaction between chalcopyrite and illite particles was analysed using ζ-potential measurements and flotation tests. Statistically designed tests were used to examine the factors controlling flotation (frother concentration, dispersant concentration, froth height, airflow rate and amount of clay). Furthermore, the significance levels of the impacts of these factors on responses (chalcopyrite grade/recovery, pyrite grade/recovery, dynamic froth stability and mean bubble diameter) were determined. Chalcopyrite and pyrite ζ-potentials were measured in the presence of illite. The addition of 15% illite to the chalcopyrite, especially between pH 11 and 12, shifted the ζ-potential values closer to that of pure illite, indicating complete surface coating of chalcopyrite with illite. In the flotation experiments, better results were obtained in terms of chalcopyrite grade at a low airflow rate and a high froth height. With increasing froth height there was a decline in the gangue mineral recovery as the residence time of the froth increased. The most significant factor increasing pyrite recovery was the amount of clay. Although illite is considered to be the least problematic clay mineral for flotation, as reported in the literature, an illite content of as low as 5% in the ore decreased chalcopyrite grade by 3.83%. While K and Na contents of 4% were detected after flotation without the addition of illite, their abundance increased to 5.7% after the addition of illite.

Information

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland
Figure 0

Table 1. Levels of factors used in the experiments.

Figure 1

Table 2. Chemical composition of the copper ore and illite (wt.%).

Figure 2

Fig. 1. XRD traces of the copper ore and illite samples.

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Particle-size distribution of the ground copper ore and illite samples.

Figure 4

Table 3. Physical and chemical properties of the tap water.

Figure 5

Fig. 3. ζ-potentials of chalcopyrite, pyrite and illite as a function of pH.

Figure 6

Fig. 4. Effect of illite addition on the ζ-potential of chalcopyrite.

Figure 7

Fig. 5. Effect of illite addition on the ζ-potential of pyrite.

Figure 8

Table 4. The effects of Aerophine 3418A and Na2SiO3 on the ζ-potentials of chalcopyrite and illite mixtures.

Figure 9

Table 5. Experimental data for the flotation results.

Figure 10

Fig. 6. Response surface plots showing the effects of (a) MCMD, (b) MCQa, (c) MFTf, (d) MCTf, (e) MDTf and (f) QaTf on the chalcopyrite grade.

Figure 11

Fig. 7. Response surface plots showing the effects of (a) MCMF, (b) MCTf, (c) MCMD and (d) MCQa on the chalcopyrite recovery.

Figure 12

Table 6. Analysis of variance for chalcopyrite grade and recovery. Statistically significant factors are highlighted in bold.

Figure 13

Fig. 8. Effects of the amount of clay on (a) pyrite grade and (b) pyrite recovery and the effects of froth height on (c) pyrite grade and (d) pyrite recovery.

Figure 14

Table 7. Analysis of variance for pyrite grade and recovery. Statistically significant factors are highlighted in bold.

Figure 15

Fig. 9. SEM images of (a) chalcopyrite, (b) illite and (c) 10% illite–chalcopyrite mixture concentrate.

Figure 16

Table 8. SEM-EDS analyses of the concentrates.

Figure 17

Fig. 10. Response surface plots showing the effects of (a) MCTf and (b) QaTf on the Σ value.

Figure 18

Table 9. Analysis of variance for dynamic froth stability and mean bubble diameter. Statistically significant factors are highlighted in bold.

Figure 19

Fig. 11. Mean bubble diameters based on froth height.

Figure 20

Fig. 12. Effects of dynamic froth stability on (a) chalcopyrite grade and (b) chalcopyrite recovery.