Mineral Processing 351/561

Laboratory Report Cover Sheet

Name(s): _______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

Laboratory No.: _______________________________________

Due Date: _______________________________________

Date Submitted: _______________________________________

All forms of plagiarism, cheating and unauthorised collusion are regarded seriously by the
University and could result in penalties including failure in the Unit and possible exclusion
from the University. Please read the Curtin University Statement on Plagiarism. If you have
any doubts contact the Unit Co‐ordinator.

Declaration

Except as indicated, this work being submitted is solely my/our own work.

________________________________________________________________________
Signature(s)
INTRODUCTION

Samples should be representative of the bulk material from which the

sample is taken. The data obtained from samples should be accurate &
consistent. Sampling introduces random errors due to non-homogeneity of
the material, segregation, particle size & shape, mineralogy & sample size,
and the method of sampling.

Random errors cannot be eliminated, but steps can be taken to minimise

the error by using good samples, estimating the level of uncertainty
associated with the results, and estimating the sample size required to
achieve a prescribed accuracy of results.

Sampling error can be estimated using Gy’s Sampling Formula, which takes into
account the size and size distribution of the material, the particle shape,
liberation characteristics and mineralogical content of the ore, and can be stated
as;
1 1
Sr 2 =Cd 3 [ − ]
M L , C=f . g . l. m

Where Sr is the relative standard deviation, f is the shape, g is the size

distribution, l is the liberation and m is the mineralogical composition of the ore,
d is the top particle size, M is the mass of the sample, and L is the lot size, which
can be negated when very large.

In this experiment, an artificial mixture containing 10% sugar will be used to

study errors introduced using various sampling methods. In this mixture the
sugar and sand are completely liberated and the sugar assay can be determined
by simple dissolution. The sampling techniques involved in this experiment are
comprised of:

 Riffling,
 Cone and Quartering,
 Strip Sampling,
 Increment Division, &
 Size Reduction/Grab Sampling.

Where these five techniques will be tested and then compared against each other
for their accuracy.
AIM

This experiment aims to introduce some basic laboratory sampling techniques

using a simple mixture of silica sands and sugar. Each sample will be assayed
under the same conditions, so that a comparison between sampling techniques
can be found.

MATERIALS
 Kettle
 100 g cane sugar
 Clean silica sand, 900g
 8 x 500mL beakers
 Ring pulverize
 Medium sized riffle
 Paint brush
 Small shovel and scoop
 Spatula
 Mixing mat
 Bump plate, steel cross, end plates
 Buchner filter paper, and filter papers
 Distilled water
PROCEDURE

1. Two bags of silica sand and sugar mixture were provided by the laboratory
staff, each of them were split into 6 subsamples via a rotary splitter. It has
produced 2 sets of 6 subsamples.
2. Subsamples 1, 3, 5 were taken from the set 1 and combined to form the
subsample for riffling method.
3. Subsamples 2, 4, 6 were taken from the set 1 and combined to form subsample
for cone and quartering method.
4. The same procedure as described in step 2, was performed to obtain the
subsample for strip sampling method. The second set of subsamples was used.
5. Subsamples 2 and 4 were taken from set 2 for increment division and sieve
analysis.
6. The last subsample from set 2 was used for size reduction/grab sampling using
a pulverizing mill.
7. Riffling
a. The sample was riffled into two halves.
b. Both of these halves were split again to give quarters.
8. Strip sampling
a. The linear form was formed from the subsample (3xwidth and
1xheight)
b. The increments were taken at a random sequence to produce needed
sample
9. Increment division
a. The material was flattened and formed a square form with 20
increments in it.
b. Four subsamples were obtained by collecting increments from different
divisions.
10. Pulverizing
a. The last subsample was grinded in a Ring Pulverizer and 4 samples
were obtained.
11. Cone and Quartering
a. The sample was thoroughly mixed on a mixing mat, and then shaped
into a cone.
b. The cone was split into 4 quarters, with the two quarters diagonally
across from one another combined together to form two halves.
c. One half was removed and the other half was split into quarters again
following the same procedure.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

Refer to appendix A for the raw data results.

The mean (µ), variance (s2) and standard deviation (s) was calculated using the
following formulas;
n
∑ mi 2 1
n

m= i=1 s= ∑ (m −m)2
n−1 i=1 i
n , ,
n
s= √ s2 =
√ 1
∑ (m −m)2
n−1 i=1 i

Where n refers to the number of assays, i refers to the sample number, and m
refers to the expected value (in all cases it was 10%). The results of the above
calculations are shown in Figure 6.
Assay Technique Mean Sugar Variance Standard
Content Deviation
Cone & Quartering 8.82% 1.03% 1.02%
Riffling 9.36% 3.87% 1.97%
Strip Sampling 9.09% 3.46% 1.86%
Increment Division 8.25% 0.82% 0.91%
Pulverise & Grab 8.49% 0.93% 0.97%
Figure 6: Mean, variance and standard deviation of the sugar content for each assay.

The absolute error and Gy’s sampling error were calculated using the formulas
below;

(mi−m ) s
% error = ´ 100 % Sr=
m , m

Where Sr is the relative standard deviation used in Gy’s formula. The results are
shown in the table below.
Assay Technique Absolute Error Gy’s Sampling Error
Cone & Quartering ±0.12% ±0.12%
Riffling ±0.16% ±0.21%
Strip Sampling ±0.16% ±0.20%
Increment Division ±0.18% ±0.11%
Pulverise & Grab ±0.15% ±0.15%
Figure 7: Calculated errors involved in each assay technique.
In similar conditions using Gy’s sampling theory, the minimum mass to obtain an
accuracy of ±0.1% sugar can be calculated (assuming a 95% confidence level,
and a top particle size of 2mm) as:

SD M sugar
Sr= a=0 .1 ´
% Sugar M ore
95 %=2 ´ SD 0 .05 342. 3
¿ ¿ 0 .1 ´
SD=0 .1 /2 10 402 . 4
SD=0 . 05 % ¿0 .005 ¿ 0 .085
f =0.5
g=0.2
l=1.0
r=1.59g/cm3
t=2.65 g/cm 3
d=0.2cm

1 Sr 2 1
= +
M Cd 3 L
0 .005 2 1
¿ +
1−0 . 085 1000
(0 . 5)´(0 . 2)´(1)´( )´ ((1−0 . 085 )´ 1 .59+0 . 085 ´ 2. 65 )´ (0. 2)3
0 . 085

M=366 . 291 gL 95 % confidence

Figure 8: Calculation using Gy’s formula for an accuracy of ±0.1% at 95% confidence.

Finally, the size distribution from the samples is given in the following graph.
 Figure 9: Sample size distribution of the original sample.

DISCUSSION
From figure 6, it is evident that the most reproducible method of assaying is the
increment division method. This is supported by the smallest variance value
(0.82%) and the smallest Gy’s sampling error value (0.11%). However, this
method produced the lowest value for mean sugar content, furthest away from
the value of 10% that was expected from the assay.

The assaying method, which produced the average assay value, closest to 10%,
was riffling. However, riffling also had the highest variance, meaning that the
riffling assay results varied the most, making the results less reliable.

Taking both standard deviation and mean sugar content into account, the most
accurate method was cone and quartering, which had a mean assay of 8.82% and
a standard deviation of 1.02. Thus the best estimate of the assay was given by the
cone and quartering method. The variance obtained from each method was quite
different to that given by Gy’s sampling formula. This is most likely due to the
small sample size used in the experiment, compared to the larger expected
sample size.

As the mass decreases, the percent of sugar content is expected to vary at a

higher percent than that of a larger mass (Wills, 1997), i.e. a sample mass of 100g
will differ by 0.1% per gram of sugar, while a sample mass of 10g will differ by
1.0%. The minimum mass of sample required to achieve a result within 0.1%
sugar was 366.3 grams. This is the mass that should have been used to achieve a
result within 0.1%. The actual masses used in the experiment were all less than
100 grams, leading to a result with a larger possible error.
The estimate of the assay using the calculated results can be calculated to be
8.80±0.154%, which does not vary much from the estimate of the assay using the
Gy’s sampling error, which was calculated to be 8.80±0.150%.

Some assumptions made in this experiment were:

 All sugar was digested and collected.

 The sample was pure sand, and the only weight difference was caused by
sugar being digested, and not any other possible compounds mixed in the
silica.
 The original reducing of the sample sizes did not affect the distribution of
sugar.
 No sand was lost, and the sample was completely dried before weighing.

CONCLUSION

By comparing and analysing the calculated data - variance, Gy’s sampling error,
mean sugar assay and absolute error, the best assaying method was determined
to be cone and quartering. Future improvements to this experiment include
using a larger sample size, or as calculated by Gy’s formula.

APPENDIX
APPENDIX A – RAW DATA

mcontainer (g) mbefore (g) mdried (g) msugar (g) Sugar Content
10.5 42.6 38.4 4.2 9.86%
9.9 45.9 42.3 3.6 7.84%
9.9 43.4 39.9 3.5 8.06%
9.9 43.1 39.0 4.1 9.51%
Figure 1: Results table from the cone & quartering assay technique.

mcontainer (g) mbefore (g) mdried (g) msugar (g) Sugar Content
9.5 74.9 69.7 5.2 6.94%
9.9 68.7 61.1 7.6 11.06%
10.0 59.5 54.4 5.1 8.57%
10.0 80.1 71.3 8.7 10.86%
Figure 2: Results table from the riffling assay technique.

mcontainer (g) mbefore (g) mdried (g) msugar (g) Sugar Content
10.1 28.5 26.4 2.1 7.37%
9.8 21.2 19.1 2.1 9.91%
9.9 23.2 21.4 1.8 7.76%
9.8 21.2 18.8 2.4 11.32%
 Figure 3: Results table from the strip sampling assay technique.

mcontainer (g) mbefore (g) mdried (g) msugar (g) Sugar Content
9.8 26.4 23.9 2.5 9.47%
9.9 22.6 20.9 1.7 7.52%
9.5 26.2 24.0 2.2 8.40%
9.6 25.0 23.1 1.9 7.60%
Figure 4: Results table from the increment division assay technique.

mcontainer (g) mbefore (g) mdried (g) msugar (g) Sugar Content
10.8 27.3 24.9 2.4 8.79%
11.9 28.8 26.1 2.7 9.38%
9.5 26.7 24.8 1.9 7.12%
9.7 24.2 22.1 2.1 8.68%
Figure 5: Results table from the pulverise & grab sampling assay technique.

REFERENCES

Department of Metallurgical Engineering and Extractive Metallurgy, Western

Australian School of Mines, Curtin University of Technology, Mineral
Processing 351/561 2014 Laboratory Manual.

B. A Wills, 1997, Mineral Processing Technology – An introduction to the

practical aspects of ore treatment and mineral recovery, 6 th E.D.

Lectures provided by N. Subasinghe for Mineral Processing 351/561, Curtin

University of Technology, Western Australian School of Mines.

http://www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-deviation.html

http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/percentage-error.html