See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257794558

Processing of Alumina-Rich Iron Ore Slimes: Is the Selective Dispersion–

Flocculation–Flotation the Solution We Are Looking for the Challenging
Problem Facing the Indian Iron and St...

Article  in  Transactions of the Indian Institute of Metals · December 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s12666-013-0287-1

CITATIONS READS

25 1,061

5 authors, including:

Vinay Jain Beena Rai

Tata Research Development and Design Centre Tata Consultancy Services Limited
13 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS    123 PUBLICATIONS   1,393 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Venugopal Tammishetti Pradip Pradip

Ma'aden Phosphate Company Tata Consultancy Services Limited
18 PUBLICATIONS   77 CITATIONS    100 PUBLICATIONS   2,057 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Cements from Industrial Wastes View project

Colloidal Processing of Alumina-Zirconia Ceramics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Venugopal Tammishetti on 06 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Trans Indian Inst Met
DOI 10.1007/s12666-013-0287-1
TECHNICAL PAPER
Processing of Alumina-Rich Iron Ore Slimes: Is the Selective
Dispersion–Flocculation–Flotation the Solution We Are Looking
for the Challenging Problem Facing the Indian Iron and Steel
Industry?
Vinay Jain • Beena Rai • Umesh V. Waghmare •
Venugopal Tammishetti • Pradip
Received: 10 January 2013 / Accepted: 5 May 2013
 Indian Institute of Metals 2013
Abstract Beneficiation of alumina rich iron ore slimes is
a major challenge for the Indian iron ore industry. Con-
sidering the limits of gravity and magnetic separation
processes in the relatively finer size range in terms of
achieving adequate separation efficiency, selective flotation
(with and without selective flocculation) of iron ore slimes,
which is being used commercially in several countries for
the beneficiation of iron ores, is worth exploring for the
beneficiation of Indian iron ores. Based on the extensive
work carried out in our laboratories, we have concluded
that the design and development of highly selective
reagents to achieve satisfactory separation of hematite and
goethite from alumina containing minerals (gibbsite or
kaolinite) in the ore and ore slimes, is the key to solving the
challenging problem of processing alumina rich iron ores.
Accordingly our research work has been focused on find-
ing/designing selective reagents for iron oxide–gibbsite–
kaolinite separation based on a molecular modeling com-
putational approach developed by us for the design of
mineral processing reagents. We present in this paper the
results of our density functional theory computations to
evaluate the interaction energies of a wide variety of dif-
ferent reagent functional groups such as carboxylic acid,
hydroxamic acid, phosphonic acid, iminobismethyl phos-
phoric acid, xanthate and starch with hematite, gibbsite and
kaolinite surfaces. Among all the reagents investigated so
far, starch exhibits the highest selectivity towards the
hematite surface with a difference in interaction energy of
V. Jain  B. Rai  U. V. Waghmare  V. Tammishetti 
Pradip (&)
Tata Research Development and Design Centre
(A Division of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd), 54B,
Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Pune, India
e-mail: pradip.p@tcs.com
TP 2701
*63 kcal/mol between hematite and gibbsite surfaces.
Based on our earlier work which indicated polyvinyl pyr-
rolidone (PVP) to be more selective dispersant for kaolinite
compared to conventional sodium silicate and sodium
hexametaphosphate, we have investigated selective floc-
culation–dispersion of natural iron ore slimes (three dif-
ferent samples obtained from three different mines in
India) with PVP and starch reagent combination. The
results are promising. While the work is still in progress,
the implications of our recent results are discussed in the
context of the challenging problem of processing of alu-
mina rich iron ore slimes in India.
Keywords Hematite  Gibbsite  Goethite  Kaolinite 
Selective flocculation  Starch  Iron ore slimes
1 Introduction
India is endowed with rich iron ore deposits. The long term
sustainability of our iron and steel industry depends on the
judicious utilization of this precious asset. Presence of
relatively higher content of alumina in Indian iron ores has
been a cause of concern and a challenging problem for the
industry without a satisfactory solution thus far. India is
currently the fifth largest producer of crude steel in the
world. The steel production in our country is expected to
double within next few years. Our annual iron ore pro-
duction will soon reach more than 300 million tonnes. Out
of a total production of 218.6 million tonnes of iron ore
produced in the year 2009–10, a record 117.4 million
tonnes consisting of 13.2 million tonnes of lumps and
104.2 million tonnes of sinter fines, were exported [1].
With a production capacity of 32 million tonnes per anum
and an annual production of over 20 million tonnes, India
123

is also the largest producer of sponge iron (directly reduced
iron, DRI). Iron ores and ore fines concentrates are thus
needed to satisfy our increasing domestic demand of blast
furnace (BF) and DRI grade products. In order to maintain
the competitive edge of Indian iron and steel industry,
which is beset with extremely serious problems of shortage
of land and water in those states where iron ore deposits are
found, it is absolutely imperative that the state-of-the-art
mineral processing technology is employed to achieve the
desirable target of zero waste, that is, converting the mined
ore into a variety of marketable grade products.
2 Beneficiation of Indian Iron Ores
Iron ores are being beneficiated all around the world using
a wide variety of separation techniques and combinations
thereof such as spiral, floatex density separator, jig, multi-
gravity separator, low and high intensity magnetic sepa-
rator, conventional as well as column flotation and selec-
tive dispersion–flocculation. Recent advances include
Batac jigs, packed flotation column, packed column jigs
and centrifugal concentrators like Falcon Concentrator,
Kelsey jigs and Knelson Concentrator for the beneficiation
of iron ore slimes [2–6]. Until very recently the processing
of hematitic ores in India did not involve any beneficiation
except for whatever rejection of silica (and to some extent
alumina in the form of clays) occurs during washing and
classification of crushed ores. More recently however, with
the successful commissioning of a beneficiation-cum-pel-
letization plant by Essar Steel, the beneficiation of fines
and slimes followed by pelletization of concentrates has
become an economically attractive option for Indian iron
ores [6].
The advantages of beneficiating iron ore fines and slimes
are obvious. It will lead to (a) better utilization of natural
resources (b) higher mine output in terms of marketable
products (c) reduction in the environmental impact of iron
ore mining as a consequence of less residue material
(tailings) for storage and disposal and (d) production of
high value added products leading to higher BF and sinter
plant productivity [5, 6].
Based on extensive research conducted in our labora-
tories, we have proposed that it is possible to come up with
an integrated innovative solution to the processing of
Indian iron ore fines and slimes aimed at achieving zero
waste production [5, 6]. In order to develop a commercially
viable process flow sheet for a given ore deposit and/or
accumulated fines/slimes resource the systematic investi-
gation would necessarily involve establishing (i) the nature
of occurrence, association and liberation characteristics of
the alumina containing minerals available in the deposit (ii)
a comparison of the separation efficiency of various unit
123
Trans Indian Inst Met
operations for both hematite–goethite/kaolinite/gibbsite
separation in terms of recovery-grade plots (separation
characteristics) and also recovery as a function of particle
size (iii) a preliminary techno-economic assessment of the
various alternate separation flow sheets. It is worthwhile
exploring a beneficiation strategy aimed at the production
of the following three marketable grade products (with no
waste to dispose of ultimately):
• Iron rich concentrate (which can be further converted
into pellets, briquets or sinter) meeting the specifica-
tions of BF grade and/or direct reduction (DRI) grade
marketable product.
• Alumina rich concentrate acceptable as the feed (or an
additive) to Bayer’s process of producing smelter grade
alumina.
• A residue which can be utilized in the production of
value added products such as glass ceramics and
cements.
In the worst case, if the residue (which should be min-
imized to a bare minimum) needs to be stored, one should
employ the semi-dry disposal technology so that there are
no tailings dams created but the residue is stored on a
reclaimable land area which is converted into green forest
in a reasonable period of time [6, 7].
We have earlier articulated and presented the basic
technological elements of an integrated strategy to utilize
alumina rich iron ore deposits [1–6]. A critical review of
the earlier R&D investigations on the reduction of alumina
in Indian iron ores clearly indicates that in addition to
magnetic separation and gravity separation, there is a need
to examine if froth flotation and selective dispersion–floc-
culation are likely to be more effective in the separation of
alumina containing minerals in Indian iron ores, certainly
for those ores having liberation size below 75 l. Consid-
ering the particle size distribution of Indian iron ore slimes
(which are likely to be even finer, if finer crushing is
resorted to for the production of even lower alumina con-
tent in lumps and fines), these two processes appear to be
extremely promising, provided the appropriate reagents are
available [5, 6].
One of the more important findings of earlier investi-
gations is that alumina in Indian iron ore slimes occurs in
the form of two distinct mineral constituents namely,
gibbsite (hydrated aluminum oxides) and kaolinite (and
other clay minerals in minor quantities). Even though not
adequately quantified, the liberation studies also indicate
that a substantial proportion of alumina is present in the
liberated form in the slimes and hence amenable to sepa-
ration by physical means [4–6]. Relative occurrence of
gibbsite and kaolinite differs from deposit to deposit and
hence ore mineral characterization on a representative
sample of the particular deposit is absolutely essential. The
Trans Indian Inst Met
final flow sheet may differ depending on the relative
occurrence of these two gangue minerals.
The occurrence of alumina in the matrix of iron ore
minerals, in particular goethite has also been reported. The
iron ores containing significant proportion of goethite are
thus more difficult to beneficiate because (a) relatively less
iron content in the goethite (62.9 % Fe) as compared to
hematite (70 % Fe) and magnetite (72.4 % Fe), bringing
down the concentrate grade with respect to iron content and
(b) the alumina present in the goethite matrix appears to be
less amenable to physical separation (the scientific reasons
underlying this observation are not yet established) which
causes problems in achieving the final concentrate grade
with respect to alumina content as well.
2.1 Froth Flotation and Selective Flocculation of Iron
Ores and Ore Slimes
Flotation process for concentrating iron ores received a big
impetus in USA immediately after the Second World War
due to the dwindling resources of direct shipping iron ores
in the Lake Superior District. Flotation of iron ores
essentially for silica removal has been reviewed exten-
sively in literature [8–12]. The iron ore industry in Min-
nesota and Michigan in US uses cationic flotation of silica
from magnetic taconites at a rate of 40 million tonnes
annually [8]. Column flotation technology for rejecting fine
silica using a variety of cationic amines was also com-
mercialized in iron ore industry including at Kudremukh
(plant is now however closed due to environmental rea-
sons) in India [6, 7, 9–22].
Cleveland Cliffs is the largest producer of iron ore pellets
in North America with a combined production capacity of 38
million tonnes and operating six mines located in Michigan,
Minnesota and Eastern Canada. In order to process finely
disseminated large deposits of oxidized taconites containing
predominantly hematite and goethite, US Bureau of Mines in
the late sixties developed a process involving selective
flocculation and desliming followed by cationic flotation of
coarse silica. It was commercialized for the first time in 1974
at the Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co’s Tilden Concentrator in USA
[8–10]. The 4.1 million tonnes per year capacity plant was
later expanded to produce 8.2 million tonnes per year of
pellets assaying 64 % Fe. The plant flow sheet involves
dispersion of minerals using sodium hydroxide in combina-
tion with sodium silicate/lignosulfonates/hexametapho-
sphate or tripolyphosphates during grinding followed by
selective flocculation of iron minerals using starches (for
example, tapioca flour starch). The settled (flocculated)
concentrate is then subjected to reverse flotation with cat-
ionic amine reagents in order to remove coarse silicates.
Starch thus works both as a selective flocculant and as a
depressant for iron minerals [8–10].
It is interesting to note that the hard taconites are ground
to 80 % minus 74 l in autogenous mills in Tilden Mine
concentrator. In addition to silica, the phosphate minerals
are also rejected during selective flocculation–flotation of
Tilden ore [9, 10]. Similar flotation plants are operating
in Sweden to remove phosphate impurities from iron
ores [18].
Flotation (with and without selective flocculation) is
thus an established and highly successful commercial
process in iron ore industry for removing silica and phos-
phate impurities. The reduction of alumina containing
minerals (kaolinite and gibbsite) by flotation is however
not yet investigated adequately and thus remains a chal-
lenging problem yet to be solved. The key to developing a
successful flotation separation process for Indian iron ores
and ore slimes is thus to find selective reagents for the
separation of iron ore minerals (hematite and goethite)
from alumina containing minerals (gibbsite and kaolinite).
We have systematically investigated and reported earlier,
the possibility of achieving selective separation amongst
hematite–alumina–kaolinite–montmorillonite minerals, the
mineral constituent representative of Indian iron ore slimes
by a selective dispersion–flocculation route [4–6, 23–27].
We have successfully utilized first principles quantum
chemical computations for the design of reagents (floccu-
lants, dispersants and flotation collectors) for a wide variety
of mineral separation problems [28–35]. We present our
most recent results on the design of reagents for separation
of hematite from associated kaolinite and gibbsite minerals
in the following section.
3 Design and Development of Highly Selective
Reagents for the Beneficiation of Indian Iron Ore
Slimes
We have employed first-principles density functional the-
ory (DFT) as implemented in the PWscf code within the
Quantum Espresso package [36] running on the EKA
supercomputer at the Computational Research Laborato-
ries, Pune to model the reagent–mineral interactions. The
generalized gradient approximation of Perdew, Burke and
Ernzerhof [37] is used for the exchange–correlation func-
tional. Vanderbilt ultrasoft pseudo-potentials [38] are used
for describing the ionic cores. The Kohn–Sham wave
functions are expanded using a plane–wave basis-set up to
a kinetic energy cutoff of 25 Ry and charge density with a
cutoff of 180 Ry. Structural relaxations are performed until
the total force on each atom is less than 0.01 eV/Bohr. The
bulk hematite, gibbsite and kaolinite structures are fully
optimized with Brillouin zone integrations sampled on
Monkhorst-pack grids of 3 9 3 9 2, 2 9 2 9 2, and,
5 9 3 9 4 k-points, respectively. The principal cleavage
123

surfaces namely (0001) and (001) are modeled for hematite
and gibbsite/kaolinite, respectively. The surfaces are cre-
ated by introducing a 10 Å vacuum along the c-axis in the
bulk structure of minerals. The starting configurations of
the functional groups on the mineral surfaces are created
using Graphical Visualizer of Materials Studio [39]. The
interaction energies are computed using the expression:
DE ¼ Ecomplex  ðEsurface þ Emolecule Þ
where Ecomplex is the total energy of the optimized
complex, and Esurface and Emolecule are the total energies
of the isolated mineral surface and reagent, respectively.
The more negative magnitude of interaction energy (DE)
indicates stronger interactions between the reagent and
the mineral surface. The readers are referred to our
earlier papers on molecular modeling computations for
the design of mineral processing reagents for more
details [40].
Fig. 1 Bulk structures of
a hematite, b gibbsite, and
c kaolinite. Red, indigo, blue,
pink and orange spheres
indicate O, Fe, H, Al and Si
respectively.
(Color figure online)
123
Trans Indian Inst Met
3.1 Hematite [a-Fe2O3], Gibbsite [a-Al(OH)3]
and Kaolinite [Al2Si2O5(OH)4] Crystal Structures
The crystal structures of hematite and gibbsite are modeled
and the results are compared with literature. The conven-
tional hexagonal unit cell of hematite contains 30 atoms
(18-O and 12-Fe) with oxygen atoms occupying the hex-
agonal close packed lattice sites and the iron atoms filling
two-thirds of the octahedral voids (Fig. 1a). The ideal
stacking of atomic layers along the c-axis can be described
by the sequence Fe–O3–Fe–Fe–O3–Fe (the subscript
denotes the number of atoms per unit cell in that particular
layer). Hematite, in its ground state, is antiferromagnetic
with Fe-atoms within Fe–Fe double layers having parallel
spins while those between adjacent double layers (sepa-
rated by an O3 layer) having antiparallel spins. The spins
are aligned parallel to the c-axis. The spin polarized cal-
culations used in this work successfully predict this
Trans Indian Inst Met

antiferromagnetic structure to be the most stable ground

state structure with lattice parameters a = 5.013 Å and
c = 13.801 Å [40] which are within 0.5 % of the experi-
mental values of a = 5.035 Å and c = 13.747 Å [41].
Unlike hematite, gibbsite has a fairly open, monoclinic
structure consisting of sheets of Al(OH)3 bound together by
weak hydrogen bonds (Fig. 1b). Each sheet consists of a
OH-double layer with Al-atoms occupying two-thirds of
the octahedral voids within this double layer. The com-
puted lattice parameters for gibbsite are also in good
agreement with experimental and previous calculated DFT
results [40].
Kaolinite is a layered aluminosilicate mineral possessing a
triclinic structure with C1 (centered symmetry) space group
(Fig. 1c). Within each layer, there is an aluminate sublayer,
wherein each aluminum atom coordinates octahedrally with six
oxygen atoms, connected through oxygen atoms to a silicate
sublayer, wherein each silicon atom coordinates tetrahedrally
with four oxygen atoms. The O-atoms connected to Al-atoms
are hydroxylated. The layers are held together by hydrogen
bonds across the (001) cleavage plane. The calculated lattice
parameters: a = 5.184 Å, b = 9.002 Å, c = 7.387 Å, Fig. 2 Structures of a amylose and b amylopectin molecules
a = 91.89, b = 105.13 and c = 89.48 agree well with
those determined experimentally [42] by X-ray single crystal
diffraction: a = 5.154 Å, b = 8.942 Å, c = 7.401 Å, a =
91.69, b = 104.61, c = 89.82. The results are also in good
agreement with previous DFT calculations by Hu and Mi-
chaelides [43].

3.1.1 Hematite (0001) Surface

The Fe-terminated (0001) surface, the most stable surface

under ultra high vacuum conditions [44–46] is character-
ized by large relaxations caused by the breakage of three
Fe–O bonds. As described in our earlier work [40], the
calculated relaxations compare well with the previous
theoretical and experimental results. We computed the
relaxations for both 18-layer (full unit cell) as well 9-layer
slabs (half unit cell). The magnitudes of relaxations for the
9-layer slab are very close to that for the 18-layer slab. Fig. 3 Optimized glucose dimer. Red, fluorescent, and blue spheres
Hence, the subsequent adsorption studies are conducted on represent O, C and H respectively. (Color figure online)
the 9-layer slab only.
3.1.3 Kaolinite Surface
3.1.2 Gibbsite (001) Surface
The (001) surface, the predominant cleavage plane in
The (001) surface is the basal and the predominant cleav- kaolinite [47, 48], was created by adding a vacuum of 10 Å
age plane for gibbsite. The gibbsite (001)-terminated sur- between adjacent (001) layers of the optimized unit cell so
face is created cleaving the optimized crystal along the as to induce the breakage of the interlayer hydrogen bonds.
c-axis through the interlayer hydrogen bonds. The gibbsite Relaxation of this slab structure did not lead to any sig-
(001) surface has (OH)-terminated Al-layers with 2/3rd of nificant changes in the atomic arrangements compared to
the OH-groups aligned almost vertical and 1/3rd aligned that of the bulk, unlike in the case of hematite. The Al–O
almost parallel to the (001) surface. and Si–O bond lengths did not change much (\0.1 Å) and

123
 Trans Indian Inst Met

Table 1 Comparison of calculated bond-lengths in a-D-glucose As evident from the bulk structure, kaolinite slab has
dimer with what is reported in the literature two different surface terminations—an octahedral surface
Bond distance This work BLYP terminated by hydroxyl (or Al–OH) groups, and a tetra-
(Ibrahim et al. [50]) hedral surface terminated by basal oxygen atoms (or Si–O).
We have investigated adsorption of starch on both these
C–C (CH2O) 1.532 1.532
surfaces.
C–C (ring) 1.529 1.559
C–H 1.107 1.108
O–H 0.978 0.980 3.2 Reagent Molecules
C–O 1.430 1.447
We have computed interaction energies for a wide variety
O–H bond lengths were within 0.005 Å of the bulk struc- of reagents. The discussion however is confined to starch in
ture. These results compare well with similar observations this paper. Starch, being a large and complex polymer,
made by Hu and Michaelides [43]. cannot be modeled as it is through DFT. Since the starch

Fig. 4 Optimized structures of

starch complexes with
a hematite (0001), b gibbsite
(001), c kaolinite Al–OH
terminated and d kaolinite Si–O
terminated surfaces

123
Trans Indian Inst Met

Table 2 DFT computed interaction energies of starch and water on
hematite, gibbsite and kaolinite surfaces
Reagent Interaction energy (-kcal/mol)
Hematite (0001) gibbsite (001) Kaolinite (001) surface
surface surface
Fe-terminated Al–OH Al–OH Si–O
terminated terminated terminated
Starch 74 11 11 4
Water 21 13 14 1
molecule consists of linear (amylose) and branched (amy-
lopectin) polymeric fractions of the a-D-glucose monomer
(Fig. 2), for the adsorption studies, a smaller glucose dimer
molecule consisting of two a-D-glucose monomers joined
together by the C1–C4 linkage is modeled as representative
of starch polymer. It is assumed that the glucose dimer will
adsorb in a similar way as the starch molecule. This
assumption is supported by Pavlovic and Brandao [49] who
have reported identical infrared spectra for the adsorbed
glucose dimer and starch on the hematite surface indicating
similar adsorption mechanisms.
The structure of glucose dimer was optimized using a
cubic box of 13.23 Å (25 Bohr) (Fig. 3). As shown in
Table 1, the calculated bond lengths compare well with that
of a-D-glucose obtained using DFT BLYP method [50].
3.3 Mineral–Starch Complexes and Interaction
Energies
The DFT optimized structures of mineral–starch complexes
are shown in Fig. 4 for hematite, gibbsite and kaolinite. The
corresponding computed interaction energies for starch are
compared in Table 2 along with those for adsorption of
water. Since the absolute magnitude of interaction energy is
higher for starch and hence it implies that it would replace
water at the surface. It is also evident that starch shows
relatively higher interaction energy for the hematite surface
as compared to gibbsite and kaolinite, suggesting starch to
be selective towards hematite. This can also be seen in the
optimized complexes (Figs. 4, 5) where strong Omolecule–Fe
complexes are formed with Fe-atoms on the hematite sur-
face as opposed to only weak hydrogen bonds (shown by the
dotted lines) on the gibbsite and kaolinite surfaces.
The highlight of these computations is the large differ-
ence in the magnitude of interaction energies between
starch–hematite and starch–gibbsite as well as the starch–
kaolinite complexes. This observation thus suggests the
possibility of starch being relatively more selective towards
the hematite surface in hematite–gibbsite–kaolinite mix-
tures. Our computations are consistent with FTIR spec-
troscopy results reported by Subramanian et al. [51] which
indicate chemical interactions between the Fe-atom of
hematite and starch adsorbate.
3.3.1 Templating Effect for Starch Interactions
with Hematite Surface
We have further examined the initial and final structures of the
starch–hematite complex and found that the O–O distances in
the dimer are very close to the corresponding Fe–Fe distances
on the hematite surface which possibly facilitates very strong
Fe–Ostarch interactions. As shown in Fig. 5, the initial O–O
distance of 5.30 Å in the dimer is similar to the corresponding
Fe–Fe distance of 5.01 Å on the hematite surface. With pro-
gress in optimization, the O–O distance relaxes from 5.30 to
5.03 Å without straining the molecule much, but involving
energetically less expensive rotations of different molecular
parts. As a result, the O–O distance in the optimized complex
becomes remarkably close to the corresponding Fe–Fe distance
on the hematite surface (5.00 Å). Such a perfect match between

Fig. 5 a Initial and b optimized

starch–hematite complexes
showing templating effect
between O–O atoms in starch
and Fe–Fe atoms on hematite
surface

123

the O–O (starch) and Fe–Fe distances gives rise to a templating
effect responsible for the high interaction energy for starch–
hematite. This binuclear complexation mechanism based on
strong affinity between Fe and Ostarch atoms aided by a tem-
plating effect, arising out of a close correspondence between
Fe–Fe distance on the hematite surface and O–O distance in
starch, is the most plausible mode for starch adsorption on
hematite. In fact, our findings are in good conformity with the
hypothesis proposed by Ravishankar et al. [23] to explain the
experimentally observed stronger adsorption of amylopectin
over amylose on hematite. Amylopectin, being a branched
molecule will have more number of end groups (C1–O and
C4–O) which would lead to higher adsorption. The observed
templating effect from our results, which also involves a C4–O
group, substantiates their hypothesis.
4 Experimental Studies on the Selective Dispersion–
Flocculation of Natural Iron Ore Slimes from Indian
Mines
4.1 Experimental Materials and Methods
Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) of average molecular weight
360,000 is procured from Aldrich chemical company and
Fig. 6 X-ray diffraction patterns of slime samples (H hematite, Go
goethite, G gibbsite and K kaolinite)
Table 3 Selective dispersion–flocculation results obtained with three natural ore slimes samples (experimental conditions: pH 11.5, 1 ppm PVP,
20 ppm starch, 1 % pulp density, settling time 15 min)
Samples Feed
%Fe %Al2O3 %LOI
Sample I 58.2 7.2 5.6
Sample II 49.1 12.1 8.9
Sample III 44.9 11.0 9.5
123
Trans Indian Inst Met
corn starch (73 % amylopectin and 27 % amylose) is
procured from Sigma chemical company. Analytical
grade HNO3 and NaOH are used for the pH adjustment.
Iron ore slime samples are obtained from three different
mines of India. The slime sample was characterized by
sieve analysis, wet chemical analysis and X-ray diffrac-
tion (XRD).
Flocculation experiments are performed using PVP as
dispersant and starch as flocculent. PVP solution (1 ppm) is
prepared by dissolving PVP in distilled water. The pH of
PVP solution was further adjusted to a desired value.
Causticized starch stock solution (10,000 ppm) was pre-
pared by dissolving causticized corn starch in distilled
water. The dry slime sample was added to the PVP solution
(at 1–5 % pulp density) and ultrasonicated for 5 min. This
slime dispersion was further conditioned for 30 min in a
flocculator at an impeller speed of 100 rpm. The pH was
measured again and adjusted to desired value. The required
amount of starch was then added and the impeller speed
was reduced to 40 rpm for conditioning the slurry for
additional 3 min. After conditioning with the starch agi-
tation was stopped and the suspension was allowed to settle
for desired time and the flocculated portion was separated
by decantation. Flocculated and suspended portions were
dried and analyzed by wet chemical method and XRD. To
determine the best conditions for the dispersion–floccula-
tion experiment for the reagent combination of PVP dis-
persant and starch flocculent, a step by step procedure is
followed. In each step effect of one parameter is tested by
keeping the other parameters constant. The effect of pH,
reagents and their dosages, pulp density and settling time,
were studied and then experiments were performed at
optimum condition.
4.2 Results
The natural iron ore slimes samples obtained from three
different mines in India were characterized by XRD. As
illustrated in Fig. 6, the samples do contain all the four
minerals namely, hematite, goethite, kaolinite and gibbsite
but in differing proportions. It is also important to note that
while sample I and II are minus 37 microns, the sample III
is extremely fine, that is, 100 % minus 8 l.
Concentrate Performance
%Fe %Al2O3 %LOI %Fe recovery Yield (%)
66.4 3.4 3.2 70.6 61.7
54.7 7.7 5.9 58.9 52.9
51.8 8.2 9.2 70.0 60.5
Trans Indian Inst Met
A wide variety of experimental conditions were studied
as per the standard procedure to arrive at a combination of
pH, flocculant dosage, pulp density and settling time for the
best results [52]. Highly alkaline pH, that is, above 10.5 is
preferred. The results obtained for all three samples with
starch–PVP combination, under the preferred experimental
conditions (pH 11.5, 1 % pulp density, 1 ppm PVP and
20 ppm starch) are compared in Table 3. It was possible to
upgrade all the three samples of iron ore slimes but the best
results were obtained with Sample I. We were able to
produce a concentrate assaying 66 % Fe and 3.4 % Al2O3
at a yield of 67 % starting from a feed assay of 58.2 % Fe
and 7.2 % Al2O3. These preliminary results are indeed
promising and do validate our molecular modeling com-
putations. A lot more work is needed to quantify the dis-
persion–flocculation of each mineral constituent. The work
is in progress to ascertain the extent of liberation of dif-
ferent minerals as well as the extent of Al substitution in
the matrix of goethite, if any.
5 Concluding Remarks
It is important to design highly selective reagents to
achieve the desired level of separation efficiency in the
hematite–goethite–kaolinite–gibbsite separation system.
Molecular modeling computations are of great value in the
screening/identification/design of promising reagents.
Starch–PVP combination has shown promise in the bene-
ficiation of alumina rich Indian iron ore slimes.
Acknowledgments The authors sincerely thank Computational
Research Laboratories, Pune for providing access to the EKA High
Performance Supercomputer facility for molecular modeling com-
putations. The authors are grateful to M/s Tata Steel, Steel Authority
of India Ltd and JSW Steel Ltd for providing the samples of natural
iron ore slimes for our investigations. The help, support and
encouragement received from Mr K. Ananth Krishnan, Chief Tech-
nology Officer (CTO), Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) during the
course of this work is gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Anon, Ministry of Mines Report (2012).
2. Pradip, Met Mater Process 6 (1995) 179.
3. Pradip, Conference on Raw Materials and Sintering, (CO-
RAS’97), RDCIS (SAIL), Ranchi (1997) p 8.
4. Pradip, Ravishankar S A, Sankar T A P, and Khosla N K, Pro-
ceedings of XVIII International Mineral Processing Congress,
Sydney, Australia, AusIMM, V (1993), p 1289.
5. Pradip, and Rai B, in Proceedings of the International Confer-
ence on Beneficiation of Fines and its Technology (ICBenefit-
2007), (eds) Mukherjee A K, and Bhattacharjee D, Tata Steel and
Indian Institute of Mineral Engineers, Jamshedpur (2009), p 123.
6. Pradip, Transactions of Indian Institute of Metals 59 (2006), 551.
7. Robinsky E I, CIM Bull 68 (1975) 47.
8. The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, 11th edn., Chap. 8,
AIST Publication, Warrendale (2010).
9. Colombo A F, in Advances in Mineral Processing, (ed) Somas-
undaran P, AIME, New York (1986), p 695.
10. Nummela W, and Iwasaki I, in Advances in Mineral Processing,
(ed) Somasundaran P, AIME, New York (1986), p 308.
11. Houot R, Int J Miner Process 10 (1983), 183.
12. Iwasaki I, in Advances in Flotation Technology, (ed) Parekh B K,
and Miller J D, SME-AIME, New York (1999) p 231.
13. Bhaskar Raju G, Prabhakar S, and Subba Rao S, Met Mater
Process 16 (2004) 143.
14. Araujo A C, Viana P R M, and Peres A E C, Miner Eng 18 (2005)
219.
15. Araujo A C, Amarante S C, Souza C C, and Silva R R R, Trans
IMM 112 (2003) C54.
16. Papini R M, Brandao P R G, and Peres A E C, Miner Metall
Process 18 (2001) 5.
17. Pinto C L L, Araujo A C, and Peres A E C, Miner Eng 5 (1992) 469.
18. Su F, Hanumantha Rao K, Forssberg K S E, and Samskog P O,
Int J Miner Process 54 (1998) 131.
19. Gustafsson J O, and Adolfsson G, in Proceedings, Conference on
Mineral Processing, (eds) Thomaeus M, and Forssberg K S E,
Lulea, Sweden, MinFo, Stockholm (1997) p 23.
20. Sodermann P, Samskog P O, Broussad A, Guoyt O, in Pro-
ceedings, Conference on Mineral Processing, (eds.) Thomaeus
M, and Forssberg K S E, Lulea, Sweden, MinFo, Stockholm
(1997) p 167.
21. Ferreira V M, Donda J D, and Peres A E C, Proceedings, Iron
Ore Conference 2005, Freemantle, Australia, (ed), Holmes R,
AusIMM Publications Series No. 8/2005 (2005) p 331.
22. Jiang W, Sun C, and Yang X, Miner Metall Process 29 (2012)
149.
23. Ravishankar S A, Pradip, and Khosla N K, Int J Miner Process 43
(1995) 235.
24. Ravishankar S A, Pradip, Deo M G, Kulkarni R A, and Gundiah
S, Bull Mater Sci 10 (1988) 423.
25. Ravishankar S A, and Pradip, Presented at the 62nd Colloid and
Surface Science Symposium, American Chemical Society, Penn-
sylvania, USA (1988).
26. Pradip, Maltesh C, Somasundaran P, Kulkarni R A, and Gundiah
S, Langmuir 7 (1991) 2108.
27. Maltesh C, Somasundaran P, Pradip, Kulkarni R A, and Gundiah
S, Macromolecules 24 (1991) 5775.
28. Pradip, Proceedings, Symposium on Reagents for Better Metal-
lurgy, (ed) Mulukutla P S, SME-AIME, New York, Chap. 24
(1994) p 245.
29. Pradip, and Rai B, Int J Miner Process 72 (2003) 95.
30. Pradip, Rai B, Rao T K, Krishnamurthy S, Vetrivel R, Miel-
czarski J, and Cases J M, J Colloid Interface Sci 256 (2002) 106.
31. Pradip, and Rai B, Colloids Surf 205 (2002) 139.
32. Pradip, Rai B, Rao T K, Krishnamurthy S, Vetrivel R, Miel-
czarski J, and Cases J M, Langmuir 18 (2002) 932.
33. Pradip, Rai B, and Sathish P, KONA 22 (2004) 151.
34. Pradip, Rai B, Sathish P, and Krishnamurty S, Ferroelectrics 306
(2004) 195.
35. Rai B, Sathish P, Tanwar J, Pradip, Moon K S, and Fuerstnau D
W, J Colloid Interface Sci 362 (2011) 510.
36. Baroni S, Gironcoli S, Corso A D, and Giannozzi P, Rev Modern
Phys 73 (2001) 515.
37. Perdew J P, Burke K, and Ernzerhof M, Phy Rev Lett 77 (1996)
3865.
38. Vanderbilt D, Phys Rev B 41 (1990) 7892.
39. Accelrys I, Materials Studio 4.1. San Diego, CA, USA (2006).
40. Jain V, Rai B, Waghmare U V, and Pradip, Proceedings: XXVI
International Mineral Processing Congress, September 24–28,
New Delhi (2012), p 02258.
123

41. Kren E, Szabo P, and Konczos G, Phys Lett 19 (1965) 103.
42. Neder R B, Burghammer M, Grasl T H, Schulz H, Bram A, and
Fiedler S, Clays Clay Miner 47 (1999), 487.
43. Hu X L, and Michaelides A, Surf Sci 602 (2008) 960.
44. Wang X G, Weiss W, Shaikhutdinov S K, Ritter M, Petersen M,
and Wagner F, Phys Rev Lett 81 (1998) 1038.
45. Trainor T P, Chaka A M, Eng P J, Newville M, and Waych G A,
Surf Sci 573 (2004) 204.
46. Chambers S A, and Yi S I, Surf Sci 439 (1999) 785.
47. Zbik M, Smart R, and St C, Miner Eng 15 (2002) 277.
123
View publication stats
Trans Indian Inst Met
48. Nesse W D, Introduction to Mineralogy, Oxford University Press,
New York (1999).
49. Pavlovic S, and Brandao P, Miner Eng 16 (2003) 1117.
50. Ibrahim M, Alaam M, El-Haes H, Jalbout A, and Leon A D,
Ecletica Quı́mica 31 (2006) 15.
51. Subramanian S, Natarajan K A, and Sathyanarayana D N, Miner
Metall Process 6 (1989) 152.
52. Venugopal T, Joshi K, Rai B, and Pradip, Proceedings: XXVI
International Mineral Processing Congress, September 24–28,
New Delhi (2012), p 05401.