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

net/publication/43457201

Optimisation of flotation pulp selectivity utilising nodal analysis

Article · January 2011

Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
0 261

3 authors, including:

Kym Runge Jean-Paul Franzidis

The University of Queensland University of Cape Town
53 PUBLICATIONS   533 CITATIONS    80 PUBLICATIONS   2,117 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

academic writing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kym Runge on 20 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PAPER 37

Optimisation of Flotation Pulp Selectivity Utilising Nodal Analysis

Kym Runge1, JKMRC Senior Research Officer

Emmy Manlapig2, JKMRC Manager, AMIRA P9M Mineral Processing Project
J.P. Franzidis3, JKMRC Manager, Mineral Processing Research
1
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre
University of Queensland, Isles Road
Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia, 4068
PH: +617 3365 5928
E-mail: k.runge@jktech.com.au
2
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre
University of Queensland, Isles Road
Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia, 4068
PH: +617 3365 5819
E-mail: e.manlapig@uq.edu.au
3
Julius Kruttschnitt Mineral Research Centre
University of Queensland, Isles Road
Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia, 4068
PH: +617 3365 5893
E-mail: J-P.Franzidis@uq.edu.au

Key words: Flotation, selectivity, nodal analysis, regrinding, lime addition

Proceedings The Westin

36th Annual Meeting of the January 20-22, 2004
Canadian Mineral Processors Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
ABSTRACT

The objective of an industrial flotation circuit is to separate valuable minerals from non-valuable
minerals utilising differences in their flotation recovery rate. Regrinding and reagent addition
are particle modification processes which are employed within these circuits to maximise the
flotation selectivity of one mineral with respect to the others present in the ore feeding the
process.

Batch test nodal analysis, or the ability to compare floatability through mathematical
combination of laboratory batch flotation test results, is a powerful technique for assessing the
effectiveness of particle modification processes on ore floatability in industrial flotation circuits.

In this paper, the use of nodal analysis is demonstrated within an industrial flotation circuit. It is
used to show that regrinding and staged reagent addition within Teck Cominco’s Red Dog zinc
retreatment circuit is beneficial to pulp flotation selectivity. Optimisation of these processes
could potentially improve the zinc recovery within the circuit. Lime addition, which is
periodically employed to depress pyrite in the circuit, was found to depress sphalerite in
preference to pyrite and to result in poorer metallurgical performance in the circuit.

INTRODUCTION

The objective of an industrial flotation circuit is to separate valuable minerals from non-valuable
minerals utilising differences in their flotation recovery rate.

Different minerals can only be effectively separated using flotation if they are sufficiently
liberated from each other (i.e. do not co-exist within the same particles) and have a sufficient
difference in surface hydrophobicity. Size reduction processes and chemical addition are utilised
before and within a flotation circuit to achieve sufficient particle liberation and to maximise
differences in mineral hydrophobicity. In effect, the objective of these processes is to maximise
the flotation selectivity of one mineral with respect to the others present in the ore feeding the
process.

Small scale laboratory batch flotation tests have traditionally been used to assess the pulp
mineral selectivity of the feed to a flotation process. In this paper, the authors propose that these
types of tests, performed on streams within the process, can also be used to assess the
effectiveness of regrinding and chemical conditioning on pulp selectivity throughout the circuit.
The combination and comparison of laboratory batch flotation tests across nodes (nodal analysis)
in an industrial flotation circuit are used to assess the effectiveness of regrinding, staged reagent
addition and lime depression - all employed within a zinc retreatment circuit to attempt to
maximise flotation pulp selectivity.

NODAL ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE

The nodal analysis technique was developed to compare the floatability of particles before and
after processes (i.e. nodes) within a flotation circuit (Runge et al 1997). A node is defined as a
point in a circuit where streams are either combined, separated or altered in some way (Figure 1).
A node can be a single unit such as a flotation cell, a regrind mill or a pump sump, a
combination of units (e.g. a bank of cells) or even an entire circuit with the feed being split into
the final concentrate and final tailing stream. A node can have multiple input streams and
multiple output streams, as in a flotation cell with multiple feed streams, or a single input and
single output stream, as in a regrind unit.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 1: Examples of nodes in a flotation circuit

(a) flotation cell; (b) tower mill; (c) pump sump; (d) flotation circuit

Ore floatability is characterised in the streams feeding or exiting such nodes by carrying out a
standard laboratory batch flotation test on a representative sample of each of the streams. In
each test, the rate of flotation of each mineral in the stream is measured as a function of time.
All tests are performed using identical operating conditions (i.e. the same air rate, froth depth,
froth collection scraping rate, etc.) so that any change in mineral recovery rate in the different
tests is primarily due to a change in the properties of the stream (i.e. ore floatability) rather than
to any change in the environment in which it is floated. The froth depth is kept to a minimum in
all tests so that differences can be attributed to changes in pulp flotation kinetics rather than to
any change in the flotation froth performance.

The experimental feed and product mineral recovery rates or mineral selectivity curves derived
from these tests can be compared directly when there is only one feed stream and one product
stream from a node. This type of technique was used by Frew et al (1994) and Elworthy and
Manlapig (1994) to investigate the effect of regrinding on ore floatability.

This direct comparison is impossible, however, when there are multiple feed or product streams
around the node. In many cases it is also impossible to obtain “the desired” samples from the
flotation process. In these cases, the mineral recovery rate of a “combined feed” or “combined
product” stream can be estimated by mathematically combining the experimental results of the
standard laboratory batch flotation tests on two or more streams (Equation 1) based on their
relative flows in the circuit.
 n

∑F Stream s
Mineral j x R Stream s, t minutes
Mineral j
R Combined
Mineral j
Stream, t minutes
= s =1
n
(1)
∑F
s =1
Stream s
Mineral j

Stram s Stream s, t minutes

where FMineral j is the flowrate of mineral j in stream s and R Mineral j is the
cumulative recovery of mineral j in stream s after t minutes of flotation in the
standard laboratory batch flotation test.

Runge et al (1997) used this technique to show that ore floatability is often a conserved property
across flotation units. The highly oxidising conditions present within a flotation cell do not
necessarily result in a change in the floatability of the particles. Figure 2 shows a comparison
between the galena recovery rate in the feed, concentrate, tailing and combined product of an
industrial scale flotation column.

100
90
Galena Recovery (%)

80 Column Feed
70
60 Column Con
50 Column Tail
40
30 Column Con +
20 Column Tail
10
0
0 10 20 30 40

Time (min)

Figure 2: Galena recovery versus time for the feed, concentrate, tailing and combined
product of an industrial scale flotation column (Runge et al 1997)

In this example, galena flotation recovery rates were different in the flotation feed, concentrate
and tailing streams. The combined galena flotation recovery rate of the concentrate and tailing
streams, however, was equivalent to that of the feed stream indicating no change in galena
floatability across the unit. The difference in galena recovery rates in the concentrate and tailing
stream was attributed to the faster floating galena-containing particles concentrating in the
concentrate streams and the slower floating galena-containing particles concentrating in the
tailing streams.

Conservation of floatability across flotation units is fortuitous and is an assumption made in the
development of a variety of different types of flotation circuit models (Imaizumi and Inoue 1963;
King 1976; Kawatra et al 1982; Harris 1998; Harris et al 2002).
Regrinding and reagent addition are employed in a flotation circuit specifically to alter particle
floatability. Comparison of ore floatability using nodal analysis techniques can help to assess
the effectiveness of these particle modification operations. A particle modification process is
effective if it renders more of the valuable mineral floatable, as depicted in Figure 3(a). Higher
valuable mineral recovery is achievable in a flotation circuit when a greater proportion of the
valuable mineral is recoverable by flotation. Alternatively, the particle modification process is
also effective if it increases the ratio between the flotation rate of the valuable mineral and that
of the gangue mineral, as depicted in Figure 3(b). A flotation circuit can only separate minerals
of different floatability. The greater the flotation selectivity between the valuable and gangue
minerals, the superior the grade versus recovery relationship achievable in a particular flotation
circuit configuration.

100 100
Before Particle
Valuable Mineral Recovery (%)

Gangue Mineral Recovery (%)

Modification
80 80 After Particle
Modification

60 60

40 40

Before Particle
20 Modification 20
After Particle
Modification
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (min) (a) Valuable Mineral Recovery (%) (b)

Figure 3: Assessment of particle modification processes: (a) Improvement in the proportion of

floatable valuable mineral; (b) Improvement in valuable to gangue mineral selectivity

In the section below, nodal analysis techniques will be used to assess the effectiveness of reagent
addition, regrinding and lime addition within an industrial scale flotation circuit.

EXPERIMENTAL

The experimental testwork for this study was undertaken within the zinc retreatment circuit of
Teck Cominco’s Red Dog operation in July, 2002. Figure 4 shows the circuit configuration
employed at the time of the testwork and denotes the streams subjected to laboratory batch
flotation testing and those from which survey samples were collected during the study.

The retreatment circuit consisted of three stages of cleaning with the first two stages of flotation
performed in conventional mechanical cells and the final stage of flotation performed in two
columns operated in parallel. A tower mill cluster was used to reduce the particle size of the
concentrate produced from the first retreat bank. Copper sulphate and potassium amyl xanthate
(PAX) were added in the first retreat bank and after regrinding. At the time of the testwork, lime
was being added, periodically, to the first retreat bank concentrate in an attempt to depress
pyrite.
Feed to the retreatment circuit was the cleaner circuit tail. This stream had a P80 of
approximately 22 microns and the major minerals present were sphalerite, pyrite and galena. For
the purposes of this study, all the other gangue minerals present have been combined and will be
referred to as non-sulphide gangue.

CuSO4 PAX
Retreat 1

Final Tail
Sump

Lime
CuSO4
Retreat
Regrind

PAX
Retreat 2

Final Conc Retreat Columns

Sump

Figure 4: Red Dog zinc retreatment circuit denoting streams sampled for batch flotation tests
(grey circles) and streams sampled during a circuit survey (grey and black circles)

The degree of liberation of sphalerite from the gangue minerals in the feed to the retreatment
circuit was thought to be poor and there was evidence to suggest that pyrite was floating
naturally within the circuit. The operating strategy of this circuit was to produce a concentrate of
a specified sphalerite grade at the highest possible sphalerite recovery. At the time of this study,
sphalerite recovery produced from the circuit was lower than desired.

Regrinding, reagent addition and lime depression were being used within the circuit to maximise
the proportion of floatable sphalerite and the sphalerite selectivity against gangue. To evaluate
the effectiveness of these particle modification processes, three circuit surveys of the retreatment
circuit were performed and laboratory batch flotation tests were carried out on the major streams
of the process during each survey (as denoted in Figure 4).

The first circuit survey was performed under normal operating conditions (no lime addition,
maximum regrind capacity). The second survey was performed with lime added to the circuit.
The third survey was performed with no lime added to the circuit but with regrind capacity
reduced by turning off one of the three mills utilised for this duty.
All circuit surveys involved collecting sub-samples of the streams in the circuit at 20 minute
intervals over a one hour period. The laboratory batch flotation testwork, performed in parallel
with the circuit survey, involved collecting a sample of approximately 0.5 to 2 litres from each
major stream in the circuit and transferring this sample to a Denver laboratory flotation cell.
Plant water dosed with an appropriate amount of frother (MIBC) was used to make up the
volume in the cell to 4.5 litres. After adjusting the air rate to 8 litres/min and the impeller speed
to 1100 rpm, timed concentrate samples were collected. Concentrate removal was performed at
a constant rate of one stroke every 10 seconds, using a paddle designed to ensure that the depth
of concentrate removal remained constant. Based on visual observation, froth depth was
maintained at a reasonably constant level throughout each experiment by the addition of frother
dosed plant water. The time between sample collection and laboratory batch flotation was
minimised to reduce the risk that samples would age (and that their subsequent flotation
behaviour would change) prior to testing.

All samples collected during the flotation tests and sampling survey were weighed wet, filtered,
dried and weighed again. Sub-samples were analysed by atomic absorption spectroscopy to
determine the lead, zinc and iron content of each sample. Mineral assays were estimated for each
sample using the elemental assays and an assay to mineral conversion regime developed by Red
Dog personnel.

This data set was used to determine the mineral flows in the circuit using mass balancing
techniques as well as the recovery rate of each mineral in each of the major streams of the Red
Dog zinc retreatment circuit under the standard conditions employed in the batch flotation tests.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Circuit Performance

Table 1 denotes the zinc grade and recovery achieved in the retreat circuit during each circuit
survey. The zinc grade produced by the circuit was similar under all three sets of conditions.
Zinc recovery was optimal in the base case survey and decreased when the circuit was operated
at reduced regrind capacity or when lime was employed in the circuit.

Table 1: Metallurgical Performance achieved during each Survey

Details of Survey Zn Grade (%) Zn Recovery (%)

Baseline 50.3 86.1
Lime Added 50.7 65.3
Reduction in regrind capacity 50.5 76.5

One can therefore tentatively conclude that the pulp selectivity was superior in the base line
survey and that this resulted in the circuit achieving higher zinc recovery. Conclusions of this
nature are difficult to make with confidence from survey data alone, however, because the effect
of feed variation on the final result cannot be discounted. The actual cause of the deterioration in
performance is also not clear from the survey result. One can postulate that the change was due
to a change in pulp selectivity but it might also have been due to changes in a range of different
variables (e.g. froth performance, entrainment recovery, air rate/froth depth employed in the
cells) between surveys.

Nodal analysis can be used to compare the pulp selectivity within the three circuit surveys and
the change in pulp selectivity at particular points in the circuit.

Circuit Nodal Analysis

The entire retreatment circuit can be thought of as a node with one feed (cleaner tail) and two
product streams (retreat column concentrate and retreat tailing). Processes occur within the node
(e.g. regrinding, reagent addition, lime addition) and the sum effect of these processes should be
reflected in a comparison between the feed and combined product of this node.

Figure 5 plots the results of the standard laboratory batch flotation tests on the feed streams to
each survey. This graph indicates that the sphalerite recovery rate was similar in the feeds to all
three surveys.

100
Sphalerite Recovery (%).

80

60

40 Baseline

Lime
20
Reduced Regrind
Capacity
0
0 5 10 15
Time (min)

Figure 5: Sphalerite recovery as a function of time for the feed (cleaner tail) to each survey

Figure 6 shows a comparison between the sphalerite recovery rates of the feeds and the
combined product streams of all surveys. This graph suggests that regrinding in combination
with reagent addition within the circuit resulted in superior sphalerite floatability in the circuit:
sphalerite recovery rate and the proportion of floatable sphalerite was higher in the products than
the feed streams of the baseline and reduced regrind capacity surveys. In contrast, regrinding,
reagent addition and the use of lime, as employed in the second survey, resulted in poorer
sphalerite floatability.
 100

Sphalerite Recovery (%).

80

60
Baseline Feed
Baseline Product
40
Lime Feed
Lime Product
20
Reduced Regrind Feed
Reduced Regrind Product
0
0 5 10 15
Time (min)

Figure 6: Sphalerite recovery as a function of time for the feed and product of each survey

It is important not only to investigate the floatability of the valuable mineral, but also to compare
the floatability of the valuable mineral with respect to the gangue minerals in the system. Figure
7 and Figure 8 show comparisons between the sphalerite mineral recovery and the pyrite and
gangue mineral recoveries, respectively, for the circuit feed and product streams in all surveys.

100 100
Baseline Feed Lime Feed

Baseline Product Lime Product

80 80
Pyrite Recovery (%)
Pyrite Recovery (%)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%) Sphalerite Recovery (%)

100
Reduced Regrind Feed

Reduced Regrind Product

80
Pyrite Recovery (%)

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%)

Figure 7: Sphalerite/pyrite selectivity curves for the feed and product of each survey
These graphs indicate that the sphalerite to gangue selectivity, whether the gangue is pyrite or
non-sulphide gangue, was optimised under the baseline survey conditions. The reduced regrind
capacity survey did display an improvement in selectivity with respect to gangue across the
circuit but this improvement was less marked than in the baseline survey. The survey in which
lime was added to the circuit actually resulted in a deterioration of the sphalerite/pyrite and, to a
lesser extent, the sphalerite/gangue selectivity. In the lime addition surveys, the flotation
recovery rate of all minerals was decreased (an example of which is shown in Figure 6) but the
sphalerite was affected to a greater degree than the gangue minerals and this resulted in a
deterioration in selectivity. Lime was being added to the circuit in an attempt to depress pyrite
and thus improve sphalerite pyrite selectivity. These results would tend to indicate that, under
the pH and reagent regime employed during the survey, lime was depressing sphalerite in
preference to pyrite.

100 100
Non Sulphide Gangue Recovery (%)

Non Sulphide Gangue Recovery (%)

Baseline Feed Lime Feed

Baseline Product Lime Product

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%) Sphalerite Recovery (%)

100
Non Sulphide Gangue Recovery (%)

Reduced Regrind Feed

Reduced Regrind Product

80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%)

Figure 8: Sphalerite/non sulphide gangue selectivity curves for the feed and product of each survey

Effect of lime addition on flotation selectivity

In the previous section, the sum effect of all the processes on the ultimate floatability of the different
minerals was assessed by considering the entire retreatment circuit as a node. The results of batch
flotation tests performed on streams entering and leaving individual processes can also be used to
investigate the effectiveness of each process modification step. To assess the impact of lime
addition in the second survey, one should ideally compare the results of batch flotation tests on
samples taken before and after lime addition. Unfortunately, the circuit design meant a sample prior
to lime addition could not be obtained for batch testing. It is possible, however, to compare the
batch flotation characteristics of the individual retreat 1 concentrates collected from the cell lips
(retreat 1-3 concentrate and retreat 1-8 concentrate) with that of the combined retreat 1 concentrate
after lime addition. Figure 9 shows a comparison between the sphalerite recovery rates of these
particular samples achieved during batch flotation.

100
Sphalerite Recovery (%).

80

60

40 Retreat 1-3 Concentrate

Retreat 1-8 Concentrate

20
Retreat 1 Concentrate
(after lime)
0
0 5 10 15
Time (min)

Figure 9: Sphalerite recovery as a function of time for two retreat 1 concentrate streams prior to lime
addition and in the combined retreat 1 concentrate stream after lime addition

As expected, sphalerite recovery rate decreased down the retreat 1 bank because the faster floating
sphalerite particles were being removed preferentially in the first cells of the bank. Thus the curve
for the retreat 1-8 concentrate lies below the curve for the retreat 1-3 concentrate in Figure 9. The
sphalerite recovery rate of the combined retreat 1 bank would be expected to lie between the curves
for the retreat 1-3 and retreat 1-8 concentrates. However, as alluded to in the discussion of the
overall circuit results, the addition of lime dramatically reduced the flotation recovery rate of the
sphalerite. The sphalerite/gangue selectivity curves (Figure 10) for the combined retreat 1
concentrate (after lime addition) batch tests indicate that sphalerite floatability is depressed to a
greater extent than the pyrite whereas there is little difference in the sphalerite/non sulphide gangue
selectivity.
 100 100

Non Sulphide Gangue Recovery (%)

Retreat 1-3 Concentrate Retreat 1-3 Concentrate
Retreat 1-8 Concentrate Retreat 1-8 Concentrate
80 Retreat 1 Concentrate 80 Retreat 1 Concentrate
Pyrite Recovery (%)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%) Sphalerite Recovery (%)

Figure 10: Sphalerite/ gangue selectivity curves for the retreat 1-3 and retreat 1-8 concentrate streams
prior to lime addition and the combined retreat 1 concentrate stream after lime addition

It may therefore be concluded that lime, under the conditions employed in the circuit, does not
depress the flotation of pyrite with respect to sphalerite, a finding that is contrary to expectation.
The reduction in sphalerite/pyrite selectivity observed in the overall circuit results is therefore, at
least partially, due to the lime addition process. One would consequently expect a lower zinc
recovery for a particular zinc grade because of poorer valuable to non-valuable mineral selectivity.
This was observed in the overall survey results (Table 1).

Effect of regrinding on flotation selectivity

Regrinding is almost always followed by reagent addition in a flotation circuit and this is the case in
the Red Dog zinc retreatment circuit (Figure 4). The effect of regrind alone, the effect of the reagent
addition alone and the net effect of regrinding followed by reagent addition can be investigated in
the Red Dog retreatment circuit by evaluating the batch test results of streams before and after
different nodes in the process (Figure 11). These various nodes will be discussed in detail in the
following section.
 CuSO4 PAX
Retreat 1
Final Tail
Sump

Lime
Regrind Node
CuSO4
Retreat
Regrind

PAX
Retreat 2

Retreat Columns
Final Conc
Sump

Reagent after Regrind Node

Regrind and Reagent after Regrind Node

Figure 11: Nodes that can be used to evaluate regrinding followed by reagent addition in the Red Dog
zinc retreatment circuit

Regrinding alone often results in a decrease in the floatability of all minerals due to the production
of new particle surfaces which do not have reagent coverage. This result is observed in the Red Dog
retreatment circuit. Figure 12 shows a comparison between the batch test sphalerite mineral
recovery rate in the streams before and after tower mill regrinding during each survey. In the
baseline and reduced regrind capacity surveys, there was a dramatic decrease in sphalerite flotation
rate and the proportion of floatable sphalerite in the regrind product streams. The opposite effect is
observed in the lime survey. This may be due to the regrinding action removing lime deposition
products from the particle surfaces in this survey.
 100

Sphalerite Recovery (%).

80

60
Baseline Feed

40 Baseline Product
Lime Feed
Lime Product
20
Reduced Regrind Feed
Reduced Regrind Product
0
0 5 10 15
Time (min)

Figure 12: Sphalerite recovery as a function of time for the feed and product of the
regrind tower mills

Interestingly, sphalerite/pyrite selectivity is significantly reduced by the regrind process (Figure 13).
In contrast, there is very little change in the sphalerite/gangue selectivity during regrinding (Figure
14). The samples before and after regrinding would need to be sized and subjected to mineral
liberation analysis to better understand the reason for this result. Solution and particle surface
chemical analysis may also provide information to explain this result.

100
Baseline Feed
Baseline Product
80 Lime Feed
Pyrite Recovery (%)

Lime Product

60 Reduced Regrind Feed

Reduced Regrind Product

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%)

Figure 13: Sphalerite/pyrite selectivity curves for the feed and product streams of the regrind mills
 100

Non Sulphide Gangue Recovery (%)

Baseline Feed
Baseline Product
80 Lime Feed
Lime Product

60 Reduced Regrind Feed

Reduced Regrind Product

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%)

Figure 14: Sphalerite/non sulphide gangue selectivity curves for the feed and product streams of the
regrind tower mills

Although regrinding often results in a retardation of valuable mineral recovery, the addition of
reagent after regrinding usually restores the floatability of the valuable minerals. The effect of
reagent addition after regrinding in the retreatment circuit surveys would not seem easy to evaluate
because PAX is added after the retreat column tailing is mixed with the regrind product stream
(Figure 11). This problem can be overcome by assessing the change in floatability across an internal
circuit node comprising the reagent addition point, the retreat 2 bank and the retreat columns (Figure
11). The feed to this node is the retreat 1 concentrate after regrinding and the products of this node
are the combined retreat column concentrate and the retreat 2 tailing. Any change in floatability
within this node can be attributed to the reagent addition point or the flotation processes within the
retreat 2 bank or retreat column cells. Figure 15 shows that both the flotation rate and the proportion
of floatable sphalerite increased across this node in all surveys.

100
Sphalerite Recovery (%).

80

60
Baseline Feed

40 Baseline Product
Lime Feed
Lime Product
20
Reduced Regrind Feed
Reduced Regrind Product
0
0 5 10 15
Time (min)

Figure 15: Sphalerite recovery as a function of time for the feed and product of the node containing
reagent after regrind
Reagent not only improved the sphalerite recovery rate but significantly improved the flotation
selectivity between sphalerite and the gangue minerals (Figure 16 and Figure 17).

100
Baseline Feed
Baseline Product
80 Lime Feed

Pyrite Recovery (%)

Lime Product
60 Reduced Regrind Feed
Reduced Regrind Product

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%)

Figure 16: Sphalerite/pyrite selectivity curves for the feed and product streams of the
node containing reagent after regrind

100
Non Sulphide Gangue Recovery (%)

Baseline Feed
Baseline Product
80
Lime Feed
Lime Product
60 Reduced Regrind Feed
Reduced Regrind Product
40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%)

Figure 17: Sphalerite/non sulphide gangue selectivity curves for the feed and product streams of the
node containing reagent after regrind

Regrinding retarded the floatability of all minerals and resulted in poor flotation selectivity. This
would, however, have no ill effect on circuit performance if regrinding followed by reagent addition
(the net sum of these two individual processes) resulted in improved mineral floatability. The net
effect of regrinding followed by reagent addition can be assessed by comparing the floatability
across the internal node comprising the regrind, the reagent addition, retreat 2 bank and the retreat
columns (Figure 11). The feed to this node is the retreat 1 concentrate prior to regrind and reagent
addition and the products of this node are the combined retreat column concentrates and the retreat 2
tailing. Any change in floatability within this node can be attributed to the regrind, reagent addition
after regrinding or the flotation processes within the retreat 2 banks or retreat column cells. Figure
18 shows there was a general deterioration in the floatability of sphalerite across this internal node in
the baseline and reduced capacity regrind surveys. Regrinding followed by reagent addition in these
surveys both slowed the sphalerite recovery rate and reduced the proportion of floatable sphalerite in
the circuit. In contrast, the floatability of sphalerite in the lime survey is improved by regrinding and
reagent addition. This contrary result is attributed to partial cleaning of the sphalerite surface of the
lime deposition products by the regrind and reagent addition processes.

100
Sphalerite Recovery (%).

80

60
Baseline Feed

40 Baseline Product
Lime Feed
Lime Product
20
Reduced Regrind Feed
Reduced Regrind Product
0
0 5 10 15
Time (min)

Figure 18: Sphalerite recovery as a function of time for the feed and product of the internal node
containing regrind and reagent addition

Regrinding would be expected to liberate sphalerite from pyrite and non sulphide gangue and result
in improved flotation pulp selectivity. Sphalerite/pyrite selectivity was found not to improve and in
fact deteriorated across the retreat regrind node in the baseline and reduced regrind capacity surveys
(Figure 19a). This type of result indicates, either, that pyrite is exhibiting natural floatability in the
circuit and liberation from sphalerite does not result in a decrease in its flotation rate or that there is
insignificant improvement in the pyrite liberation across the regrind. The samples before and after
regrinding would need to be sized and subjected to mineral liberation analysis to ascertain the reason
for this result.

In contrast, sphalerite selectivity with respect to non sulphide gangue generally improved across the
regrind node (Figure 19b). This result indicates that the regrind mills are liberating sphalerite from
non sulphide gangue resulting in improved pulp selectivity which should result in improved
metallurgical performance in the circuit. Interestingly, there was very little difference in the
sphalerite/gangue selectivity with the reduction in regrind capacity. This result is unexpected and
does not correspond with the reduction in sphalerite/gangue selectivity measured across the entire
retreatment circuit in the reduced regrind capacity survey. This result may be due to a 20%
reduction in the reagent added after grinding (on a grams/tonne of sphalerite basis) when regrind
capacity was reduced.
 100 100

Non Sulphide Gangue Recovery (%)

Baseline Feed Baseline Feed
Baseline Product Baseline Product
80 Reduced Regrind Feed 80 Reduced Regrind Feed
Pyrite Recovery (%)

Reduced Regrind Product Reduced Regrind Product

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%) (a) Sphalerite Recovery (%) (b)

Figure 19: Sphalerite/gangue selectivity curves across the internal node which contained regrinding in
the baseline and reduced regrind capacity surveys

Sphalerite/pyrite and sphalerite/non sulphide gangue selectivity improved across the node containing
regrind and reagent in the lime survey (Figure 20). The improvement in sphalerite/pyrite selectivity
(not observed in surveys in which lime was not added) is again probably due to cleaning of the
sphalerite surface of lime deposition products during grinding and by the reagent added after regrind.

100 100
Non Sulphide Gangue Recovery (%)

80 80
Pyrite Recovery (%)

60 60

40 40

20 Lime Feed 20 Lime Feed

Lime Product Lime Product

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%) Sphalerite Recovery (%)

Figure 20: Sphalerite/gangue selectivity curves across the internal node which contained regrinding in
the lime survey

Effect of Retreat 1 bank reagent addition on flotation selectivity

Reagent is added to a circuit either to render non-floatable valuable mineral floatable or to increase
the flotation rate of the valuable mineral with respect to the non-valuable minerals to improve its
selectivity. Copper sulphate and PAX are added to the tailing boxes of the first and second cells in
the first retreat bank (Figure 4), respectively, to achieve this objective. To assess the effectiveness of
staged reagent addition in the retreat 1 bank, one can compare the floatability of the feed to the bank
to that of the product. Retreat 1 bank feed floatability can be estimated by combining the batch test
recovery rates of the cleaner tailing (feed to the circuit) and the retreat 2 bank tailing streams.
Retreat 1 bank product floatability can be estimated by combining the batch test recovery rates of the
retreat 1 concentrate and the retreat 1 tailing streams. This type of comparison cannot be performed
for the lime survey due to the inability to obtain a sample from the circuit prior to lime addition.

Figure 21 shows clearly that reagent addition at this point increased the sphalerite flotation rate and
marginally increased the proportion of floatable sphalerite mineral in the system in both the baseline
and reduced regrind capacity surveys.

100
Sphalerite Recovery (%).

80

60

40
Baseline Feed
Baseline Product
20
Reduced Regrind Feed
Reduced Regrind Product
0
0 5 10 15
Time (min)

Figure 21: Sphalerite recovery as a function of time before and after reagent addition in retreat 1 bank

These increases in sphalerite recovery rate were more significant than any increase in pyrite or non-
sulphide gangue mineral recovery rate across this node and resulted in improved sphalerite/gangue
selectivity (Figure 22 and Figure 23). It can be concluded that reagent addition in the retreat 1 bank
was beneficial to the process and resulted in an improved ability to separate sphalerite from pyrite
and non-sulphide gangue within the circuit.

Sphalerite/gangue selectivity is more improved in the baseline survey than in the reduced regrind
capacity. It is interesting that the improvement in sphalerite/gangue selectivity observed in the nodal
analysis of the overall circuit is only observed across this reagent addition process modification step
rather than across the regrind node as one would expect. This result may simply be due to a
reduction in the PAX addition rate employed in the retreat 1 bank in the reduced regrind capacity
survey (i.e. the reagent addition rate employed in the Retreat 1 bank in the reduced regrind capacity
survey is 40% less (on a grams per tonne of sphalerite basis) than in the baseline survey). More
likely it is due to the fact that liberation within the circuit at reduced regrind capacity is poorer than
in the baseline survey and this has resulted in the use of less reagent at both this reagent addition
point and the reagent addition point after regrinding to enable the desired concentrate grade to be
achieved by the circuit (i.e. if more reagent is used after regrinding, the poor selectivity that would
result would not enable the desired concentrate grade to be achieved). Again mineral liberation
analysis would help to ascertain the actual reason for this result. This result does highlight, however,
the potential to improve the metallurgical performance in this circuit through the optimisation of
reagent usage and regrinding within the circuit. Nodal analysis is a technique which can be used as a
tool to determine the optimal interaction of these various processes on flotation circuit selectivity.

100 100
Baseline Feed Reduced Regrind Feed

Baseline Product Reduced Regrind Product

80 80
Pyrite Recovery (%)

Pyrite Recovery (%)

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%) Sphalerite Recovery (%)

Figure 22: Sphalerite/pyrite selectivity curves before and after reagent addition in retreat 1 bank

100 100
Non Sulphide Gangue Recovery (%)

Non Sulphide Gangue Recovery (%)

Baseline Feed Reduced Regrind Feed

Baseline Product Reduced Regrind Product

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Sphalerite Recovery (%) Sphalerite Recovery (%)

Figure 23: Sphalerite/non sulphide gangue selectivity curves before and after reagent addition in
retreat 1 bank

Reagent addition in retreat 1 bank would also seem beneficial within the survey in which lime was
added. A comparison between the mineral recovery rates achieved in the retreat 1 feed (calculated
by combining the batch test results for the cleaner tailing and retreat 2 tailing streams) and the feed
to the 3rd cell in retreat bank 1 (calculated by combining the batch test results for the retreat 1-3
concentrate and retreat 1-3 tailing streams) indicates an improvement in the sphalerite flotation rate,
the proportion of floatable sphalerite and the sphalerite/pyrite selectivity after reagent addition
(Figure 24).
 Sphalerite Recovery (%). 100 100

80 80

Pyrite Recovery (%).

60 60

40 40

20 20
Retreat 1 Feed Retreat 1 Feed
Retreat 1-3 Feed Retreat 1-3 Feed
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (min) Sphalerite Recovery (%)

Figure 24: Sphalerite recovery as a function of time and sphalerite/pyrite selectivity curves before and
after reagent addition in retreat 1 bank during the lime addition survey

Conclusions from Red Dog retreatment circuit nodal analysis

Batch test nodal analysis indicates that the various particle modification processes used or trialled in
the Red Dog retreatment circuit are affecting particle floatability. Reagent addition in retreat 1 bank
was beneficial to the process in that it improved the sphalerite/pyrite and sphalerite/non sulphide
gangue selectivity. Regrinding was also beneficial to the process in that it improved the selectivity
of sphalerite with respect to non-sulphide gangue. Lime addition to the circuit, under the conditions
employed in the survey, was detrimental to circuit performance. Lime depressed and slowed the
flotation rate of sphalerite to a greater degree than pyrite and gangue in the circuit and therefore
undermined the ability of the circuit to separate these various minerals.

The sum effects of these various process modifications are best investigated by comparing the
flotation response of various minerals in the feed and product streams of the circuit in standard batch
laboratory flotation tests. Trends observed in these comparisons seem to be directly related to the
ability of the circuit to achieve zinc recovery with respect to the desired zinc grade. The baseline
survey exhibited the greatest selectivity between the sphalerite and the gangue minerals and
produced the highest zinc recovery at the desired zinc concentrate grade.

The results of the nodal analysis suggest that the use of lime to depress pyrite in the retreatment
circuit under the current operating philosophy be discontinued. At the same time, a potential for
improvement in sphalerite and gangue selectivity by optimising the regrind size and reagent regime
(i.e. type, flow and reagent addition point) utilised within the retreatment circuit is indicated. This
could be tested using batch test nodal analysis similar to that outlined in this paper.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Batch test nodal analysis, or the ability to compare the floatability of streams in flotation processes
through mathematical combination of batch test results, is a powerful technique for assessing the
effectiveness of particle modification processes on ore floatability in industrial flotation circuits.
Conventionally this type of analysis has been performed through comparison of circuit survey data
or through the use of on-off plant trials. Batch test nodal analysis has the following advantages over
this conventional type of analysis:

• Feed disturbance effects do not undermine the analysis.

• Pulp selectivity can be investigated independently of the operating variables used within the
circuit (air rate, froth depth, flotation capacity).
• The effect of a single process or the sum effect of a number of processes can be investigated.

In the Red Dog case study presented in this paper, changes in pulp selectivity highlighted by the
nodal analysis technique were used to explain significant changes in the metallurgical performance
of the circuit operated under different conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the metallurgical and technical staff at Teck Cominco Red Dog
Alaska and Teck Cominco Research Centre for their generous assistance supplied throughout the
period of the testwork. The contributions of David Seaman, Rob Coleman and researchers from
McGill University and JKMRC who were on site and assisted with the testwork campaign are also
gratefully acknowledged. In addition, the authors would like to thank Dr J. Frew and Mr M.C.
Harris and those within the flotation groups of the JKMRC and University of Cape Town for their
contributions to the development of the techniques presented in this paper. The financial support of
the sponsors of the Australian Mineral Industries Research Association (AMIRA P9M Project) is
also gratefully acknowledged.

REFERENCES

Elworthy, G.W. and Manlapig, E.V., “Case studies on the effect of fine grinding on flotation”;
Proceedings of the 5th Mill Operators’ Conference, Roxby Downs, South Australia, 16-20 October,
AusIMM Publication series 9/94, pp 251-261, 1994.

Frew J.A., Davey K.J. and Glen R.M., “Effects of fine grinding on flotation performance:
distinguishing size from other effects”; Proceedings of the 5th Mill Operators' Conference, Roxby
Downs, South Australia, 16-20 October, AusIMM Publication series 9/94, pp. 263-270, 1994.

Harris, M.C., “The use of flotation plant data to simulate flotation circuits”; Proceedings SAIMM
Mineral Processing Design School, SAIMM , Johannesburg, 1998.

Harris, M.C., Runge, K.C., Whiten, W.J. and Morrison, R.D., “JKSimFloat as a practical tool for
flotation process design and optimization”; Mineral Processing Plant Design, Practice, and Control,
SME, Vol 1, pp. 461-478, 2002.

Imaizumi, T., and Inoue, T., “Kinetic considerations of froth flotation”; Proceedings 6th
International Mineral Processing Congress, Cannes, pp. 581-593, 1963.
 Kawatra, S.K., Suardini, P.J., and Whiten, W.J., “The computer simulation of an iron ore flotation
circuit”; Proceedings 14th International Mineral Processing Congress, Toronto, Session III, pp.10.1-
10.19, 1982.

King, R.P. “The use of simulation in the design and modification of flotation plants”; Flotation:
A.M. Gaudin Memorial Volume, ed: M.C. Fuerstenau, AIME, Vol 2, pp. 937 – 961, 1976.

Runge, K.C., Harris, M.C., Frew, J.A. and Manlapig, E.V., “Floatability of streams around the
Cominco Red Dog lead cleaning circuit”; Proceedings of the 6th Mill Operators’ Conference,
Madang, Papua New Guinea, 6-8 October, AusIMM, Publication series 3/97, pp. 157-16, 1997.

View publication stats