Separation Science and Technology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lsst20

Gravity separation by falcon concentrator- an over

review

S. Farajzadeh & S. Chehreh Chelgani

To cite this article: S. Farajzadeh & S. Chehreh Chelgani (2022): Gravity separation
by falcon concentrator- an over review, Separation Science and Technology, DOI:
10.1080/01496395.2022.2028836

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2022.2028836

© 2022 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 20 Jan 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1313

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lsst20
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2022.2028836

REVIEW

Gravity separation by falcon concentrator- an over review

S. Farajzadeha and S. Chehreh Chelgani b

a
School of Mining Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran; bDivision of Minerals and Metallurgical Engineering,
Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Over the last three decades, in order to reduce environmental issues of processing fine mineral Received 15 October 2021
separation methods such as flotation while decreasing capital cost, gravity separation has become Accepted 7 January 2022
significantly important. Falcon concentrators as enhanced gravity separators have been developed KEYWORDS
for the sharper separation beneficiation of finely disseminated ores based on their specific gravity Enhanced gravity separator;
differences. Falcon concentrators employed centrifugal force, which is many times improve the Centrifuge force; Gold; Waste
separation based on the gravitational force. This comprehensive review analyses the literature on recycling
Falcon separators’ application and process mechanisms for the first time, contrasting several
factors’ effect on their metallurgical responses. Studying these factors would be crucial for optimiz­
ing industrial plant operation and the expansion of laboratory-scale investigation impact.
Summaries of the information indicated that the centrifugal force generated by bowl rotation
and fluidization water pressure could be considered the most influential factors through falcon
separation performance. However, this review released that correlations between operating para­
meters of a falcon concentrator with their representative metallurgical responses have not been
explored thoroughly. Addressing these gaps will pave the way for the design and operation of
a falcon separator and help to improve its performance.

Introduction of magnitude greater than Earth’s attraction due to the

It is well known that, during the past few decades, the
necessity to process finely disseminated complex ores
caused a decline in the performance efficiency of the
conventional gravity separators. Because of this ineffi­
ciency, froth flotation has gained large industrial uses
due to its selective separation capability in finer sizes.
EGSs (enhanced gravity separators) were created and
developed to bridge the gap between conventional gravity
units and froth flotation.[1] EGS is a physical separation
method that uses centrifugation to separate fine valuable
minerals from gangue minerals depending on their spe­
cific gravities (S.G). The applied centrifugal force is many
times more than the gravitational force, increases differ­
ential settling, and subsequently allows sharply separate
particles.[1–5] This technique is comparatively superior to
the traditional gravity-based separation in terms of per­
formance, efficiency, and processing of finer particle size
ranges in the throughput.[6–8]
Falcon concentrator (FC), as an EGS, consists of
a fast-spinning bowl. The slurry is fed from the bottom
of the bowl, and centrifugal force is used to drain the
slurry in a thin film along its wall. Some particles are
retained in the bowl during operation, while others flow
out with the fluid. Centrifugal force can be several orders
high rotation rate in the flowing film.[9–13] The bowl of
a semi-batch falcon can be fluidized to avoid compac­
tion and remove light particles from the concentration
zone. FCs are semi-batch machines, but on a larger scale,
continuous FC can process up to 100 t/h of ore with
a high feed pulp density (up to 45 wt%). FC that are
operated in semi-batch mode (Falcon SB) and the ultra­
fine Falcon (Falcon UF) can be utilized to accurately test
the separation performance of FC (Figs. 1–3, and Tables
1–3); hence, to establish the process’ feasibility on an
industrial scale. Neither the Falcon UF nor the industrial
FC requires wash water, which lowers operating costs
and increases the environmental friendliness of this
processing method.[14]
The first industrial use of the ultra-fine (UF) Falcon
concentrator (Fig. 1) was commissioned in April 2005,
making it a relatively new technology. The Ultra-Fine
Falcon was developed to improve the treatment of tanta­
lum flotation concentrates due to mineralogy changes.
The UF Falcon uses a spinning bowl to produce stratifica­
tion of light and heavy minerals similar to other centrifu­
gal concentrators. However, there are a few differences in
terms of the unit itself. The UF Falcon is designed to
process feeds with a particle size of 3–75 µm. Another

CONTACT S. Chehreh Chelgani saeed.chelgani@ltu.se Division of Minerals and Metallurgical Engineering, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå,
Sweden
© 2022 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-
nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built
upon in any way.
2 S. FARAJZADEH AND S. CHEHREH CHELGANI

Table 1. Recommended setting of UF falcon concentrator by Sepro Mineral Systems Corp.

Model
Parameters UF600 UF1500
Solids capacity (t/h) 0.5 2
Maximum feed size (µm) <38 <38
Minimum effective capture size (µm) <5 <5
Maximum solids percent range (%) 5–15 5–15
G-force range (G) 50–450 50–600
Applications Recovery of ultrafine slimes (tin, tantalum, tungsten, etc.), Scavenging of deslime cyclone overflow, Upgrading of fine
flotation concentrates

Table 2. Recommended setting of SB falcon concentrator by Sepro Mineral Systems Corp.

Model
Parameters L40 SB400 SB750 SB1350 SB2500 SB5200
Solids capacity (t/h) 0–0.25 1–15 10–80 50–150 100–250 200–400
Maximum feed size (mm) 1 2 2 2 2 2
Maximum solids percent range (%) 55–70 65 55–70 55–70 55–70 55–70
G-force range (G) 50–200 100–150 50–200 50–200 50–200 50–200
Applications Recovery of gold (alluvial, aggregate plants, and recycling feed), silver and platinum group metals

Table 3. Recommended setting of C falcon concentrator by Sepro Mineral Systems Corp.

Model
Parameters C400 C1000 C2000 C4000
Solids capacity (t/h) 1–5 5–27 20–60 200–400
Maximum feed size (mm) 1 1 1 1
Minimum effective capture size (µm) 10 10 10 10
Maximum solids percent range (%) 40–45 40–45 40–45 40–45
G-force range (G) 50–300 50–300 50–300 50–300
Applications Primary concentration of tin, tantalum, tungsten, chrome, cobalt, iron, fine oxidized coal, and uranium
Scavenging of fine particles lost by low G force processes and flotation
pre-concentration of heavy minerals

Feed Feed

Retention Retention
zone Rinse Fluidization water
zone
Nozzles

Stratification Stratification Rinse Nozzles

zone zone

Light Light
particles particles

Impeller Impeller

Heavy Heavy
particles particles

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of UF type Falcon concentrator. Figure 2. Schematic diagram of SB type Falcon concentrator.

result of using such fine feeds is that the UF Falcon does
not require any fluidization water, even at laboratory size.
With a maximum value of up to 600 Gs, it is capable of
stronger G-Forces than standard continuous Falcons.
Finally, in industrial size systems, the UF bowl is practi­
cally vertical, with the gravity concentrate holding zone
consisting of a single, changeable lip ring.[15]
Falcon SB Concentrators (Fig. 2) are referred to as
“Semi-Batch” because they receive feed continuously
throughout the run cycle but only generate concentrate
during periodic rinse cycles. Depending on the application,
run times might range from five minutes to many hours.
Falcon Concentrators use a dynamic braking mechanism to
instantly slow the bowl down, rinse away the concentrate,
and then return to full operational speed. This gravity
concentrator, which has a variable frequency motor, can
work at pressures ranging from 50 to 200 G’s (Falcon SB
brochure).
Although UF and SB falcons may mostly have similar
feed rates, UF can be used for ultrafine particles (micron
size), while SB mainly uses particles within the millimeter
size range. Therefore, UF falcons have been operated in
a higher G-force range (50–600 for UF vs. 50–200 for SB).
Compared to SB Concentrators, Falcon C Concentrators
are often employed in gravity recovery applications requir­
ing a larger mass yield to concentrate. Falcon
C Concentrators, which are frequently used to recover
precious fine particles, can recover fines missed by dense
medium separators, spirals, or any other low G process.
Feed
Retention
zone
Stratification
zone
Impeller
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of C type Falcon concentrator.
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 3
These machines, designed for continuous duty, may
achieve bulk yields of up to 40%. The Falcon ‘C’s principal
goal is to optimize recovery while reducing tonnage to
downstream operations. Because no water is introduced
during processing, the method is also suitable for scaven­
ging or pre-concentrating applications (Falcon
C brochure).
Although several investigations have addressed the
application of Falcons, few studies are exploring the various
effect of process conditions on its performance in detail.
This is the first review to offer an in-depth analysis of Falcon
performance in various mineral beneficiation processes,
including experimental worked and modeling procedures
suggested in the literature. The literature analysis indicates
that while the Falcon application in mineral beneficiation
has been extensively explored, insufficient attention has
been paid to its system application in recycling processes.
It is also highlighted that the literature available on Falcon
process modeling is scarce. The lack of fundamental under­
standing of the effect of Falcon variables on the separation
process is discussed, which is essential for effective optimi­
zation systems.
Separation principles
The separation mechanism inside a FC is quite complicated
(Fig. 4). It is difficult to fully understand the separation
characteristics since various forces influence particle move­
ments in the concentrate chamber. In the last decades,
Throttling
Nozzle
Rinse Nozzles
Light
particles
Heavy
particles
4 S. FARAJZADEH AND S. CHEHREH CHELGANI

Feed

Retention
zone
Heavy particle
Light particle

Migration
zone

Tailings

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of Falcon Concentrator.

numerous studies have been carried out to investigate the

separation mechanisms in a FC, including investigations on
the separation characteristics, influencing factors, and
simulation studies (mathematical and computer
modeling).[3,4,16,17]
In general, the separation system in a FC is based on the
difference in particles’ settling velocity in the centrifugal
field. It operates on the principle of flowing film concentra­
tion, in which the feed slurry acts as a flowing film. Feed
slurry is injected near the cone’s bottom and is accelerated
up the cone wall by the centrifugal field.[18] Before particles
report either to the outlet or get trapped inside the retention
zone in response to the centrifugal force, the impeller
homogenized feed particles that facilitate particle transpor­
tation in the flowing film. The particles’ differential settling
velocity promotes the separation over fluidization water in
FCs.[19,20] According to the quantitative comparison
among the available data, a FC could provide the lowest
separation density (d50) for different centrifugal gravity
separators (EGS). This could be due to its ability to provide
a maximum centrifugal force of 300 g.[21]
The feed slurry is introduced at the bowl bottom
through a central pipe. An impeller then forces the feed
toward the bowl wall. Strong enhanced gravity force
resolves into 1) a force component normal to the wall
and 2) a force component parallel to the wall.
Stratification starts at the migration zone by the impeller
action due to differential acceleration. The normal force is
very strong and induces the radial velocity on the particle.
The heavier and coarser particles have higher radial velo­
city, while lighter and smaller particles have a lower radial
velocity. The heavier particles form a bed adjacent to the
bowl wall, and the lighter particle layer remains at the
farthest location from the wall. A weak parallel force com­
ponent helps layer migrations in the upward direction. In
Figure 5. Position of different products inside the Falcon
concentrator[22].
the retention zone, the heavier layer’s upward movement is
restricted to facilitate overflow discharge. The heavy layer
clings to the wall and is discharged through pinch valves
fitted on the bowl wall in the retention zone.[1]
Based on the structural analysis of FCs, the product can
be divided into three parts: 1) overflow, 2) top groove,
and 3) bottom groove, as illustrated in Fig. 5. The heaviest
particles settle at the bottom groove, medium-density par­
ticles remain in the top groove, and lighter particles leave
the chamber as overflow. It shows that the separation
process is accomplished based on particle density and
motion. Randomness movement of a single particle that
causes the mismatch of particles (few heavy particles move
into the overflow) affects the apparent regularity of the
particle’s overall movements and the separation.[22]
Modeling and simulation studies
Two distinct particle separation mechanisms are identified
inside the FCs[9,11,12,23,24]: differential particle settling
within the liquid film flowing on the surface of the rotating

Figure 6. Effect of a) centrifugal force and b) fluidization water pressure on the three-dimensional velocity[32].
bowl, and particle rearrangement inside the granular
bed[25] that forms inside the Falcon’s retention zone. For
dense particles, such as fine gold, the second separation
mechanism controls the separation. The heavy particles
are centrifuged against the bowl even before they reach
the retention zone. However, differential settling will con­
dition the probability that a fine and light particle may get
the particle bed during its relatively short residence time
inside the machine.[9] Therefore, the first separation
mechanism is likely to control the separation mechanism
for dredged sediment beneficiation. Particle rearrangement
inside the concentrate bed could play a beneficial role where
light particles are entrained inside the particle bed. This
transfer allows them to be re-suspended into the flowing
film, which can be achieved by fluidizing the Falcon’s
retention zone.[9,26,27] The water movement inside
a rotating drum or a bowl will affect the separation
characteristics.[28] simulated the water flow mechanism
inside a rotating Falcon SB-40 Concentrator bowl using
a CFD package Fluent and standard k-epsilon turbulence
model. They highlighted important findings like water film
thickness along the sides of the bowl at different axial
heights inside the domain in an unsteady state.
[16] presented the basis of a mechanistic model for the
FC, to quantify its potential for beneficiating dredged
sediments with ultrafine particle size and relatively low
density, say 5–60 µm and 1.2–3.0 S.G. The presented
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 5
Falcon model relied on a hydrodynamic analysis of
particles’ trajectories inside the Falcon’s flowing film.
They indicated that the dredged sediment particles had
comparatively low inertia; hence, separation inside the
Falcon was controlled mainly by the fluid flow field.
Accurate modeling of particle trajectory inside the
Falcon was a truly three-dimensional problem. The
fluid velocity in the azimuthal direction appeared in
the axisymmetric solution of the particle force balance
equation. The three-dimensionality of the problem was
neglected and results indicated that the FC could be used
for beneficiating dredged sediments. The simulation
model helped to predict the washability of both the
product and the tailings streams. Consequently,
Falcon’s partition function could be calculated. The par­
tition function predicted by the simulations for
1000 rpm and 4 l/min was applied to the washability
measured on a sample of dredged sediments from a lake.
The main forces acting on the particles during their
motion through the fluid film are the buoyancy force
�!
( FB ) (due to the density difference between the particles
�!
and the fluid), the pressure gradient effect ( FG ), the
�!
added mass force ( FM ) (due to inertia of the fluid dur­
ing an acceleration either of fluid or the particle) and the
�!
drag force ( FD ).[29] Accounting for the viscous and
pressure contributions..
6 S. FARAJZADEH AND S. CHEHREH CHELGANI

�! � �
calibrated by systematically changing operating condi­
FB ¼ ρ p ρf Vp~
g (1)
tions that could be used to predict the UF Falcons
performance quantitatively.
�! D~
u [20] also developed a predictive model of the FC based
FG ¼ ρf Vp (2)
Dt on a physical analysis of its separation principle and the
� � validation of the proposed model against experimental
�! D~u d~
ν data. They extended the analytical law to concentrated
FM ¼ ρf Vp CM (3)
Dt dt suspensions, making it applicable to actual plant operat­
ing conditions (Eqn. 8]. Dredged sediment waste
�! 1 removal and coal recovery from fine tailings are two
FD ¼ ρf Ap CD j~
u ~
νjð~
u ~
νÞ (4) examples of industrial cases that have been used to test
2
the model.
Where ρf and ρp are density values of fluid and particle, � �!
respectively, V and A stand for volume and area, ~ u and ~ν 4π
λ ð1 1:6ϕ ÞQ 1 2
ω ρ ρ
p f
are velocity vectors of the fluid and the particles, and CM Cp ¼ min 9 (8)
rp2 μ 1 Rmin Rmax Hbowl ; 1
and CD are added mass and drag coefficients.
[30] quantified their presented models (Eqn. 1–4] for the Rmin , Rmax and Hbowl define the bowl geometry (base
beneficiation of ultrafine low-density (s.g. < 3) suspen­ radius, radius at the outlet, and height).
sions composed of dredged sediments. Under dilute con­ In the other areas, the flow dynamics of the concen­
ditions, the model equation for the partition function was: trator were investigated using numerical simulation.[32]
� � � � The effect of centrifugal force and fluidization water
4π β
Cp ¼ min λQ 1 ω2 ρp ρf rp2 μ 1 R20 α cos L1þα ; 1 pressure on the fluid velocity component was considered
9 2 bowl
(Figs.6 and 7). The gradient characteristics were revealed
(5) by analyzing the turbulence intensity in the radial direc­
� � tion. Simulation results indicated that near the wall area
ln 1 þ RL0 sin β2 exhibited high turbulent flow energy and a high turbu­
α¼ (6) lence dissipation rate. This allowed light particles to
ln RL0
reenter the separation region. Meanwhile, the fluid
Where the variables were flow rate (Q) and bowl spin­ exhibited a steady flow pattern in the fall wall area,
ning rate (ω, particle radius (rp) and its density (ρp), fluid which aided the stratification process. An increase in
dynamic viscosity (μ) and its density (ρf), bowl’s base centrifugal force raised turbulence near the wall; how­
radius (R0) and cone angle (β). λ was introduced as the ever, fluidization pressure had little effect.
model calibration constant. [3] reported that the performance indices for Falcon UF
The model was modified for concentrated suspen­ showed a 4-phase separation. Unselective bed formation
sions with the addition of an expression for solids con­ occurred during the early phase of growth, as small particles
centration (ϕ) in[31]: were ejected from the bowl. Afterward, through the second
0 � �1 phase of selective separation, differential settling began as
4π 1 2
λ ð1 1:6ϕÞQ ω ρ p ρ f A the concentrate bed rapidly expanded until it achieved its
Cp ¼ min@ 9 (7)
2 1 2 α β 1þα
rp μ R0 cos 2 Lbowl ; 1 desired final shape. During the third phase, the concentrate
bed stabilized, recovery, and enrichment continued to rise
Experimental assessments carried out with fine silica due to a selective erosion process that appeared to favor
particles, which had yielded validation of all the key dense particle concentration. Capture sites saturated, and
model hypotheses, including: particle settling along the recovery rates declined in the fourth stage.
centrifugal gravity was the main separation mechanism, Falcon separator flow field information could also
particles that entered the Falcon bowls retention zone obtain using high-speed dynamic shooting technology
could not be re-suspended back into the flowing film, to validate the correctness of theoretical and measured
the flow field inside the flowing film could be modeled values. Rising the height of the cylinder wall would have
by a Poiseuille’s semi-parabolic profile and a solid rota­ an inverse relationship with the thickness of the flow
tion, at the bottom of the bowl, the impeller mixed the film. In both the separation and delamination areas,
suspension homogeneously, the action of the fluid on measurement findings revealed that the measured flow
the particles could be described by a Stokes’ law whose film thickness values could be identical to calculated
drag coefficient was inversely proportional to the parti­ values. On the other hand, the increasing rotational
culate Reynolds number. Moreover, the model was frequency might result in a small increase in relative

Figure 7. Effect of a) centrifugal force and b) fluidization water pressure on radial turbulence[32].
error. The observed result is nearly identical to the pre­
dicted value, with a reduced relative error in terms of
recoil water velocity. Assessments released that calcu­
lated and observed values can properly estimate the flow
film thickness and recoil speed in an increased gravita­
tional field.[17]
Fluid entered the FC from two points: (a) the gravity-
assisted feeding mechanism and (b) the fluidized hole on
the concentrator wall.[33] injected a tracer into the sys­
tem to determine the role of fluid entering the concen­
trator. Results demonstrated that the fluid entering
through the gravity-based feeding mechanism was
responsible for forming thin flowing films in the strati­
fication region, where particles were stratified based on
their relative density. The simulation outcomes showed
that the rotational speed and fluid flow rate substantially
impacted the fluid velocity profile within the stratifica­
tion zone. On the other hand, the fluid flow rate had
a major impact on the tangential velocity profile. It was
discovered that achieving a high mass recovery from
suspension required a high rotational speed and a high
cone angle. The fluid thickness profile of a FC’s spinning
bowl was estimated to be in the range of 150–200 µm in
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 7
the stratification region. The estimated fluid flow profile
would be useful in simulating particle trajectories inside
the FC.
Effective parameters
Many factors may influence a Falcon’s operation effi­
ciency, including feed characteristics such as particle den­
sity and size, and also operating variables such as
fluidization water pressure (only for the Falcon SB), feed
rate, pulp concentration, rotation speed (or frequency,
which affects the generated centrifugal force), and the
geometry of the rotating bowl [bowl angle). Some of
these variables have significant effects, while others may
have limited impacts. For example, the nature of the raw
material has a determinative impact on whether FC could
be considered for the separation or not. In general, the
higher density difference between the valuable and
gangue minerals leads to a more precise separation,
while the presence of coarse gangue mineral particles is
detrimental to the separation process. Heavy mineral
particles that are roughly spherical are often more likely
to be collected than flaky particles. However, many inter­
8 S. FARAJZADEH AND S. CHEHREH CHELGANI
actions among these variables could also affect Falcon’s
performance, and the effectiveness importance of each
variable should be determined through a multivariable
assessment.
Centrifugal force and fluidization water pressure
The bowl rotation would generate the centrifugal force
that could be one of the most important operational
variables for separation by FCs. Fluidization water pres­
sure plays the same role for the SB-type Falcons. The
effect of centrifugal force through the separation of
particles could be investigated in the form of rotation
speed or frequency.,34studied the performance of
a Falcon B concentrator to recover gold particles with
centrifugal force values of 250 and 350 G. They con­
cluded bowl speeds giving the centrifugal force greater
than 250 G could not improve gold or sulfide recoveries.
They indicated that the interactions between backwater
pressure and rotation frequency on the desulphurization
efficiency. The backwater pressure had a major impact
on the desulphurization efficiency, but rotation fre­
quency showed a negligible effect [34, 35] investigated
the effect of some Falcon operational variables, includ­
ing rotation frequency, on the celestite separation from
calcite. Since the rate of heavy particle stratification was
not considered at the low bowl speeds, the lighter parti­
cles (calcite) had a chance to dilute/displace the heavier
ones (celestite). When the bowl speed is increased, the
heavy particles are more likely to stratify before entering
the fluidization zone. Since stratification enhanced the
particle packing, the drag force exerted by the fluidizing
water was insufficient to disrupt the stratified particles.
This phenomenon could release the entrapped gangue
mineral, i.e., calcite, and reduce the upgrading perfor­
mance. Thus, lower bowl speeds resulted in lower recov­
eries and higher grades.
Consequently, lower bowl speeds (10 Hz) had the best
conditions for separating celestite from calcite.
Although the centrifugal force was the overriding vari­
able, the percentage of calcite was important in selecting
the operational variables for the machine. The interac­
tion between the motor speed and the water pressure
also considerably influenced the concentrate grade. In
addition, the design findings demonstrated that more
than 95% of the calcite was eliminated at low bowl speed
and medium wash water pressure.[35]
[36] experimentally studied pyrite removal from
coal using FC via Central Composite Rotatable
Design (CCRD). They used the Response Surface
Method (RSM) to design their experiments with
two factors: backwater pressure and rotation fre­
quency. The process outcomes indicated that the
particle net weights were at their minimum at the
low-frequency levels. When the water pressure
increased, the generated hydraulic force was sufficient
to reject both the heavy particles (pyrite) and the coal
concentrate (light particles). Thus, this increase
resulted in a decrease in the separation efficiency.
Meanwhile, gravitational force was sufficient to col­
lect heavy particles and some light pyrite particles at
the high-frequency values. In that condition, by
increasing the water pressure, the produced hydraulic
force would also enhance the separation of lighter
particles and increase the separation efficacy of the
process. In other words, the interaction between cen­
trifugal force and fluidization water pressure would
improve the ash rejection process. Ash content is
reduced as the centrifugal force and fluidization
water pressure increase.[37]
It was reported when a higher centrifugal force was
applied on the ash particle; there would be a lower
chance for particles to join through the overflow.
A centrifugal force around 150 G and the water pres­
sure around 0.02 MPa could result in the combustible
matter recovery, ash content, and sulfur content:
74.86, 16.06, and 0.95%, respectively. These numbers
could be translated as 46.27% desulfurization
efficiency.,[37]38studied the effect of process variables
on the enrichment of macerals for a low-rank coal
sample. It was documented that the vitrinite enrich­
ment ratio gradually increased as the rotational fre­
quency of the FC increased, leading to a gradual
decrease in the recovery. The enrichment of particles
in the upper and lower groove would be more diffi­
cult. The water pressure forced on particles in the
fluidized zone increased as the water pressure
increased. Large water pressure could increase clean
carbon’s yield and ash content and decline the vitri­
nite content.[38]
[39] performed an investigation on pyritic limestone
to understand the performance of fine minerals in dif­
ferent operational conditions. They found that high
calcite recovery would be obtained at higher water pres­
sure and lower gravity force levels. The increase of
gravity force could reduce the calcite recovery in the
overflow due to the influence of the centrifugal forces
on both calcite and pyrite. The quick stratification of
both the minerals might lead to the packing of particles,
and the entrapment could subject calcite particles in the
tail. In this case, the fluidization water pressure could
assist in dilating the particle bed and reducing the
entrapment. The effect of Falcon operational variables
(two types of Falcon UF and Falcon SB) on the removal
of gangue minerals from tungsten ore demonstrated that

Falcon SB had a higher gangue rejection with marginally
lower recoveries as compared to the Falcon UF due to
the fluidization pressure.[14]
Particle properties
Size and density are the essential particle properties
through the separation by a Falcon. It was reported
that a FC failed to reduce the ash content of the −44 µ
fraction.[40] In comparison, it could cut the ash content
for the −149 + 44 µ fraction from 20.53 to 7.71% and the
Sulfur level from 3.02 to 1.67%.[40] Xiang nan Zhu et al.
[37) indicated that smaller particle sizes would be under
set conditions to reach the overflow. Additionally, with
the reduction in particle size, the difference in the ash
content between raw coal and clean coal with the same
fraction would decrease, resulting in a steady decline in
the separation efficiency. Aydogan & Kademli [41]
reported that fine particles were washed with the effect
of the water pressure, while the concentrator might be
choked in coarse sizes. There was also no opportunity
for varying concentrations of particles to use the same
artificial gravity value and washing water pressure. The
assessment of the test results showed that the artificial
gravity strength and the water pressure were reversed in
proportion.
Operational factors could manage the effectiveness of
particle properties. The FC has complex operating con­
ditions and has to run under optimal conditions to
improve the efficiency of diverse particle size distribu­
tions. The distribution law of different particle sizes
might be significantly influenced by centrifugal force in
a Falcon). The distribution rate of coal samples of vary­
ing grain sizes in overflow decreased as the centrifugal
force increased. The distribution rate of various size coal
fractions decreased with an increase in the fluidizing
water pressure. Any intermediate density particles in
the fluidized region had been removed from the riffle
by the large water pressure and could be an overflow
product.[38]
Other parameters
● Feed flowrate: [40] considered feed flowrate as a less
effective factor on FC efficiency and stated that the
volumetric flow rate could control the capacity of
a centrifugal washer. A fast flow through the bowl
tended to wash certain material in the overflow,
usually reporting to the underflow. This condition
sets the optimum flow rate for a particular bowl
diameter. Recent studies also confirmed this phe­
nomenon that increasing the feed rate steadily
enhanced the coal ash removal to an optimum
point and then decreased the clean coal yield.[38]
With the rise in feed rate, the content of vitrinite in
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 9
renewable carbon steadily declined. The yield,
ashes content, and vitrinite content of coal
improved slowly as the feed rate rose from 15 to
35 ml/s.[38]
● Solid percentage: Feed solids concentration showed
a minor effect on the FC efficiency.[40] Increasing
the solid content from 5 to 25% in the feed led to
a leap in the content of ash products from 17.3 to
15.5%. However, the combustible recovery values
fell from 63.1 to 54.6% in the same range of solids.
The decline in recovery might be a function of the
batch operation. [39] reported that the variations of
solid percentage in the feed could be managed by
controlling the water pressure.
● Bowl geometry: Limited studies have investigated
the effect of bowl geometry, specifically bowl angle.
[34] examined three different bowl angles of 10, 12,
and 14 degrees to recover gold particles and
achieved the best results with the 10-degree bowl.,­
40
stated that the smaller slope bowl (8° slope) had
greater sulfur and ash rejection due to improved
particle retention times.
Applications
As previously stated, some operating condition variables
such as fluidization water pressure (for the Falcon SB
only), feed rate and density (increasing rate and density
above a certain value will hinder separation), and rota­
tion speed (increasing spin raises G force, increases the
separation force on the feed) or frequency (increasing
frequency increases the separation force on the feed) can
all have an impact on a Falcon’s efficiency. FC is capable
of treating particles up to 15–20 µm, but upgrade ratios
are generally low (typically 2 to 1). All these parameters
could be set up differently for the FC gravity separation
beneficiation by various ore systems.
Coal
In coal-preparation plants, froth flotation is the most
popular for ash and sulfur rejection. However, flotation
efficiency for cleaning fine coals (1–0.3 mm) could be
poor.[40] The ability of gravity separation equipment to
treat fine coal has greatly improved with the development
and application of enhanced EGS. This is due to the tens
to hundreds of times Earth’s gravitational acceleration
created in an enhanced gravity field, which significantly
increases the sedimentation velocity differential between
sulfide and coal particles.[18,42–44] Although the FC has yet
to be used on an industrial scale for fine coal cleaning,
several laboratories and pilot-scale attempts have been
conducted to improve fine coal using FC (Table 4).
 10

Table 4. A summary of researches on the application of Falcon concentrators in the coal industry.
Levels of variables
Falcon Experimental Water
model method Size (µm) G force pressure Other variables Optimal results Reference
[40]
SB6 OFAT −150 -600 300 G - Bowl angle −150 µm sample: sulfur reduced from 4.02 to 1.45%, and ash reduced from 33.7 to 16.0%.
8 ° & 14 ° -600 µm sample: sulfur reduced from 2.9 to 1.59%, and ash reduced from 20.3 to
13.54%.
[23]
C10 OFAT 600 x 210 210 x 37 –37 300 G - - For a fraction of 210x37µm maximum separation performance was achieved, 70% of ash
and sulfur were removed and almost 90% of combustibles recovered.
[45]
C10 Statistical 1000 x 600 600 x 300 10–30 Hz - % solids While maintaining high organic efficiency of 94%, the process reduced the ash content of
design 300 x 210 210 x 150 5–15 difficult-to-clean coal from 29.0 to nearly 6.9%.
150 x 75 75 x 44 Medium density (gr/cm3)
1.3–1.5
[44]
N.M BBD −500 (fixed) 70, 74, 78 Hz 2, 3, 4 % solids The optimum pyrite sulfur desulphurization efficiency is 86.90% when the feed rate is
15, 20, 25 2.97 L/min, the feed solids% is 15.01%, the backwater pressure is 3.80 Psi, and the
Feed rate (L/min) rotation efficiency is 77.73 Hz.
2, 2.5, 3
[46]
S. FARAJZADEH AND S. CHEHREH CHELGANI

SB40 Statistical d80 = 28 (fixed) 20, 78, 176, 0.5, 1, 1.5 % solids A gravity force of 300 g, a solids% of 20%, a feed rate of 1 L/min, and water pressure of 0.5
design 300 G 10, 20,30 psi were determined to be the optimum levels for achieving a minimum ash content of
Feed rate (L/min) 40.26%.
0.5, 1, 1.5
[47]
SB40 Statistical d50 = 4–10(fixed) 20, 78, 176, 0.5, 1, 1.5 % solids The Falcon concentrator was discovered to be ineffective at reducing the ash content of
design 300 G 10, 20, 30 ultra-fine coal tailings.
Feed rate (L/min)
0.5, 1, 1.5
[48]
C400 N.M −75 980–1100 - Tailings valve-pressure (Psi) Falcon Concentrator achieved a low specific gravity of separation of 1.74 and a probable
807-1153 160–200 error (Ep) of 0.13.
461–692
576 G
[49]
SB40 Taguchi d80 = 28 (fixed) 20, 78, 176, 0.5, 1, 1.5 % solids The MGS can generate clean coal with a calorific value of 5696 kCal/kg and the Falcon
300 G 10, 20, 30 produces clean coal with a calorific value of 4224 kCal/kg from feed coal with 66,2%
Feed rate (L/min) ash content and 1835 kCal/kg calorific value.
0.5, 1, 1.5
[50]
L40 RSM −300 -150 -75 20 100 300 G - % solids Solid concentration should be increased up to 50–55% to generate a dense and viscous
5–50 medium.
[51]
L40 RSM −300 -150 -75 20 100 300 - % solids % solids should be kept above 30%-35% (maximum 45–50%) for effective fine coal
5–50 beneficiation through the Falcon concentrator.
[36]
SB40- CCRD & RSM −100(fixed) 20–78.5 Hz 1–4 % solids At rotation frequency, 78.38 Hz (rotor speed 2282 rpm, 300 g), and backwater pressure
VFD 10 (fixed) 3.90 psi, the optimal pyrite separation efficiency was 70.61%.
Feed rate (L/min)
0.2
[52]
SB40 OFAT −500 - Recoil water - At 107 g centrifugal force, 13.3 L/min recoil water flow, clean coal with yields of 53.86%,
(L/min) ash content of 9.81%, 1.47% sulfur content with a desulfurization efficiency were
7, 9.5, 11, obtained.
13.5
[37]
SB40 OFAT −500 5, 50, 100, 0.01, 0.02, - The separation performance of varied particle sizes indicated poor separation efficiency.
150, 200 G 0.03, 0.04, Particle distribution rates in clean coal increase with particle size, and the presence of
0.05 MPa ultrafine fraction is the primary explanation for clean coal’s high ash content.
[38]
N.M Orthogonal N.M 20, 25, 30, 35, 0.02, 0.025, Feed rate (ml/s) For a calculated vitrinite recovery rate in clean coal of 71.30% and a vitrinite enrichment
experiments 40 Hz 0.03, 15, 25, 35, 45, 55 ratio of 1.17%, the optimal settings were rotation frequency 30 Hz, water pressure
0.035, 0.04 0.03MPa, and feed rate 15 ml/s.
MPa
Table 5. A summary of investigations on the application of Falcon concentrator in iron beneficiation.
Levels of variables
Falcon Target Water Other
model mineral Gangue minerals Size (µm) G force pressure variables Optimal results Reference
[54]
N.M Hematite Jasper, Quartz −1000 40, 60, 9, 12, 15 %solids Under optimal conditions of 40 HZ rotation frequency and 15 Psi backwater pressure, Falcon produced
(Martite) 80 Hz PSI 10 (fixed) a concentrate with 61.80% Fe with a yield of 62.40%.
[56]
SB40 Magnetite- Quartz, Kaolinite, −74 -25 80 G 20–60 %solids A concentrate of 62.16% Fe and 7.62% SiO2 was produced under optimal conditions (solid% 75%, water pressure
Hematite Smectite (fixed) (bar) 10–100 of 50par, particle size −25 µm) from 49.33% Fe, 21.18% Silica.
[57]
L40 Magnetite- Quartz, Calcite, −106 50, 150, 20, 30, 40 - When size was −106 µm and the water pressure was 30 psi, the maximum iron grade was achieved as Fe2O3,
Hematite Limonite, Goethite -153 250 G PSI 84.85%.
-200
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
11
12 S. FARAJZADEH AND S. CHEHREH CHELGANI
Crushing
Gravity Concentration
(-850µm)
Grinding
Figure 8. Standard procedure for a GRG test using a centrifugal gravity concentrator.
Honaker et al. examined various conditions for the fine
coal beneficiation by utilizing EGS, including employing
a FC, Kelsey jig, KC, and Mozley multi-gravity separator,
and discovered that the EGS was capable for separating
fine coal with (−300 µm).[23,43,45,53] EGS processes were
provided substantial operational ease and cost savings
compared to other technologies such as flotation.
It was reported that in the optimized, for –
600 µm fine-circuit feed, total sulfur content was
lowered from 2.9 to 1.59%, and for a −150 µm frac­
tion decreased from 4.02 to 1.45%. Ash content for
the top size fractions was lowered from 20.3 to
13.54% and for a −150 µm fraction from 33.7 to
16.0%.[40] A low-density cut point of 1.6 was
achieved for the 210 × 37 µm size fraction. Ash
rejection between 60 to 75% has been obtained
while recovering was greater than 85% for the com­
bustibles. The sulfur rejection values achieved were
superior to those were achieved by a spiral concen­
trator and a flotation column. The metallurgic per­
formance for the – 37 µm fraction of all coal samples
was minor due to insufficient centrifugal force.[23]
Other investigations reported more precise findings,
which are summarized in Table 4. The effect of
gravity force is mentioned either in terms of
g force, Hz (frequency of bowl rotation), or rpm
(bowl rotation speed).
Iron ores
For beneficiation of iron ores with fine particle sizes,
enhanced gravity separators such as Kelsey Jig,[54]
MGS (Multi gravity separator),[55] and Falcon
separators[54,56–58] have been utilized. A list of impor­
tant findings on the application of FC is listed in
Table 5. [57] recently found that wet magnetic
Conc. 1
Stage 1
Stage 2
Gravity Concentration
Conc. 2
Stage 3
Conc. 3
Grinding Gravity Concentration
Total GRG
separation (64.02% Fe) and gravity separation with
a FC (56–65% Fe) could yield desirable concentrate
grades, and the roasting process significantly
increased concentrate recovery yields (despite
a slight decrease in iron grades might happen).
Gold
A Falcon L40 laboratory-scale concentrator was sug­
gested to be used for the gravity-recoverable-gold
(GRG) procedure (Fig. 8) (a Knelson concentrate
laboratory mainly operates this test). In general, FCs
have been successfully used to recover gold from various
resources (Table 6).
Recycling of electronic wastes
LiCoO2 and graphite comprise the majority of the elec­
trode material in lithium-ion batteries, which is concen­
trated in the −0.25 mm size fraction of the fractured
product. Gravity separation is appropriate because the
density of graphite differs from that of LiCoO2, and con­
ventional equipment cannot perform efficient separation
due to the decreased settling velocity of particles. The
Enhanced Gravity Separators (EGS), on the other hand,
increased the separation accuracy of fine fractions.[32,62]
Falcon centrifuge can be used successfully to separate
LiCoO2 and graphite particles from spent LIBs as feasible
and straightforward mechanical processing.[62] The opti­
mal results are briefly reported in Table 7.
Rare earth minerals
For many years, gravity concentration has been used to
recover monazite (as a phosphate rare-earth mineral
(REM)) from heavy mineral sands. However, the process
efficiency is markedly varied based on the REM
Table 6. A summary of researches on the application of Falcon concentrator in gold enrichment.
Falcon
model Ore type Ore mineralogy Results Reference
[59]
B12 & Non- Pyrite, quartz, feldspar, hydrous ferric oxides, The ore sample was a non-refractory gold ore in which the liberated gold was around 25% and a non-severe grinding followed by
B6 refractory amphibole, carbonate, 7.3 g Au/t a cyanidation process could recover near 90% of the total gold.
[34]
Falcon Leach Over 80% of the gold in the tailings is locked in The 14 ° bowl provided the best gold recovery of minus 20 microns. Falcon B concentrates gold-bearing silicate particles to 11
B tailings silicates microns in size. Particles smaller than 11 microns are beginning to follow the water flow into the tailings.
[60]
SB40 Free-milling Quartz, silicates and sulfides of Pb, Fe, Zn, Cu, With a bulk yield of 7.2%, 81% of the gold in the ore can be extracted. Panning showed 1760 g/t Au in the concentrate. Panned
23.3 g Au /t concentrates would most likely determine the gravity recoverable gold.
[61]
N.M vein-type Galena, sphalerite chalcopyrite, arsenopyrite, For the free gold entities, a liberation size of −53 µ was determined. This ore’s overall GRG value was discovered to be 48.28%.
epithermal pyrite, quartz, calcite, 7.5 g Au/t Producing a pre-concentrate from this ore via gravity concentration would be promising.
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
13
 14
S. FARAJZADEH AND S. CHEHREH CHELGANI

Table 7. A summary of investigations on the application of Falcon concentrator in electronic waste recycling.
Levels of variables
Water
Falcon pressure
model Waste type Size (µm) G force (MPa) Other variables Optimal results Reference
[63]
SB40 PCB −74 (fixed) 30, 40, 50 Hz 0.01, 0.02, Solids conc. (g/L) With the slurry concentration of 40 g/l, the water pressure of 0.01MP, and the rotation speed of
0.03 20, 30, 40 50 HZ, the metals grade and integration efficiency of −74 µ PCBs were 76.89 and 80.77%,
respectively.
[64]
SB40 PCB −1000 30, 40, 50 Hz 0.04, 0.05, Solids conc. (g/L) Falcon produced 92.36% metal graded concentrate with 97.05% recovery when the water
(fixed) 0.06 10, 20, 30 pressure was 0.05MPa, the speed frequency was 30 Hz, and the feed density was 20 g/l.
[65]
SB40 Li-ion Batteries −45 45, 90, 150, 200 G 0.02, 0.03 - Maximum yield of 55% achieved under 0.03MPa water pressure and 45 g centrifugal force.
+45-74
+74-125
[62]
SB40 Li-ion Batteries 90–250 20–70 Hz 0.01–0.05 - For optimum separation conditions of LiCoO2 s grade of 84.87% and recovery of 83.14%., the
45-90 water pressure is 0.025 MPa, and the rotary frequency is 50.00 Hz.
-45
Table 8. A summary of researches on the application of Falcon concentrator in REM concentration.
Falcon Levels of variables
model Target mineral Gangue minerals Size (µm) G force Other Optimal results Reference
[71]
N.M Bastnaesite, Barite, Calcite, P80 = 144, 77, 50 100, 175, 250 Feed rate The optimum product of 14.5% calcium, 13.13% barium, and 7.8% rare earth
Monazite, Parisite, Dolomite, Quartz, G (min) elements was successfully generated from a feed averaging 12% calcium, 6.7%
Allanite Feldspar 30, 45, 60 barium, and 3.4% TREE was successfully generated with the finest particle size
distribution, lowest feed rate, and lowest G-force.
[70]
L40 Monazite Quartz, Feldspar, −53 45, 60, 75 - The LREE grade in concentrates rises in line with increasing frequency of rotation,
(SB & Micas, Tourmaline Hz but LREE recovery shows limitations with a maximum LREE recovery of 95% at
UF) a medium frequency of 60 Hz.
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
15
 16

Table 9. A summary of investigations on miscellaneous applications of Falcon concentrator for different ores.
Levels of variables
Falcon Feed type/Target Water
model mineral Gangue minerals Size (µm) G force pressure Other Optimal results Reference
S. FARAJZADEH AND S. CHEHREH CHELGANI

[74]
SB40 Oil sands tailings/ Quartz, Feldspars, d80 ≈ 150 20, 60, 150, 200, 300 - Water temp.(C) Falcon was able to extract 85% of the heavy minerals but only 30% of the bitumen.
Ti/Zr oxides Zircon, mafic G 20, 50 This value may be decreased more with enhanced liberation.
silicates
[35]
SB40 Celestite Calcite −80 3, 20, 45, 70, 87 2, 4, 7, 10, Calcite % At low bowl speed and midpoints of washing water pressure and calcite content,
Hz 12 2.5, 12, 26, 40, 50 more than % of the calcite was eliminated. It was possible to obtain
a concentrate with as low as 4% calcite.
[72]
SB40 Bentonite/Smectite Feldspar, Quartz, −500 49, 100, 175, 250, 0.66, 1, Feed rate (L/min) Falcon used maximum gravity force and minimal water pressure and feed rate to
Calcite, Dolomite 301 1.5, 2, 0.99, 1.5, 2.25, 3, raise smectite content to 97.74% and eliminate virtually all non-clays
G 2.34 3.51 (impurities).
PSI
[39]
SB40 Limestone/Calcite Quartz, Dolomite, −75 60, 155, 250 0.5, 1, 1.5 % solids At gravity force 223, water pressure 0.95 psi, and solid concentration 30%, the
Pyrite G PSI 10, 20, 30 highest SO3 rejection was 81.03%, while the maximum calcite recovery was
89.40% CaCO3 at gravity force (g) 139, water pressure 0.96 psi, and solid
concentration 30%.
[73]
SB40 Chromite tailings/ Serpentine, Talc d50 ≈ 300 25–300 20–100 - The optimum results were obtained with 150 G at 60 kP in below 250 µ, with a 72%
chromite G kpa recovery a grade of 28.38%.
[14]
L40 Tungsten ore/ Vesuvianite, −150 30, 50, 70 1, 2, 3 PSI % solids The optimized Falcon SB test enabled for scheelite, calcium salts, dense calcium
(SB & Scheelite Epidote, Hz 2, 6, 10 silicates, and light non-calcic silicates to achieve 71.6%, 22.6%,17.2%, and 12.6%,
UF) Feldspars, Garnet Feed rate (kg/min) respectively.
1, 2, 3

associations. As a result of comparatively high S.G of
REM (up to 7) and the low S.G of silicate gangue (2.5),
gravity separations could be successful. However, their
gravity separation has historically proven problematic
due to REM’s impact (and loss) containing particles and
their similar S.G with barite. Gravity separation of bast­
naesite has also had limited economic success.[66]
However, gravity separation has been employed for
REM beneficiation in heavy mineral sands processes,
with separators such as FC, Knelson, Mozley Multi-
Gravity Separator, spirals, and shaking tables serving as
gravity pre-concentration stages.[67–69] However,[70]
reported that the Falcon UF and Falcon SB are less
efficient than flotation for the fine residue of
a monazite sample. The Falcon UF provided excellent
recoveries (87–95%) but little enrichment (1.3–1.4
ratios), whereas the Falcon SB concentration of
unscreened residue produced higher grades (up to
0.6% LREE) with poor recoveries (17–22%).
A summary of some investigations on FC’s application
is presented in Table 8.
Other applications
FC has also been used to recover Celestite,[35]
Bentonite,[72] Tungsten ore,[14] chromite,[73] Nickel
laterites), Limestone[39] and other minerals, and related
studies and applications are shown in Table 9.
Summary
Enhanced gravity separation (EGS) is a physical
separation technique that employs centrifugation to
separate fine valuable minerals from their gangue
phases based on their specific gravities. In terms of
performance, separation efficiency, and processing of
finer feed particle size ranges, this method outper­
forms standard gravity-based separation. Falcon con­
centrator, as an EGS, is a fast-spinning bowl that uses
centrifugal force to drain the slurry in a thin film
along its wall. Due to the rapid rotation rate in the
flowing film, centrifugal force can be many orders of
magnitude larger than Earth’s gravity. In general, two
separation mechanisms can be identified inside the
FCs, including differential particle settling within the
liquid film flowing on the surface of the rotating
bowl, and particle rearrangement inside the granular
bed (retention zone). The second separation mechan­
ism works for dense particles, such as fine gold, while
differential settling controls the separation process
for fine light particles.
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 17
Different types of falcons have been developed for
various purposes. The Falcon bowl (Falcon SB) can
be fluidized to prevent compaction and remove light
particles from the concentration zone, while the
Falcon UltraFine (UF) bowl cannot follow this pro­
cedure. FC operated in continuous mode (Falcon C)
process up to 100 t/h of ore with high feed pulp
density (up to 45%wt). However, few investigations
have been conducted for comparing various types of
falcons’ performance. Modeling could potentially also
covers part of their differences.
Modeling and simulation studies of FC operations
reveal that the water movement and thickness of the
water film inside the bowl will affect the separation
characteristics. Using numerical simulation to study
the flow dynamics of the concentrator showed that
high turbulent flow energy and a high turbulence dis­
sipation rate near the wall area could allow light particles
to reenter the separation. In the fall wall area, the fluid
showed a steady flow pattern which facilitated the stra­
tification process. Turbulence along the wall increases as
the centrifugal force increases. On the one hand, fluidi­
zation pressure had minimal effect on the process. The
fluid arriving through the gravity-based feeding
mechanism could be responsible for forming thin flow­
ing films in the stratification area. The rotational speed
and fluid flow rate significantly influenced the fluid
velocity profile within the stratification zone. On the
other hand, the fluid flow rate had a significant influence
on the tangential velocity profile. A high rotational
speed and a high cone angle were required to achieve
a high mass recovery from suspension.
The nature of the raw material has a significant influ­
ence on whether or not a FC should be employed to
achieve separation and what would be the metallurgical
responses of the process. In addition to particle density
and size, other elements that may affect the Falcon’s
efficiency include the feed rate, pulp concentration, rota­
tion speed (or frequency), and geometry of the spinning
bowl (bowl angle). Falcon concentrators’ most signifi­
cant operating variable is the centrifugal force generated
by bowl rotation and fluidization water pressure for SB-
type Falcon. Other factors, including feed rate or solids
concentration, may have a minor effect on separation
responses; however, few studies have been examined
relationships between FC operating variables and their
representative metallurgical responses.
FCs have been examined for de-ashing and desul­
phurization of coal, recovery of rare earth elements
and precious minerals such as gold, recycling of electro­
nic waste (Li-ion batteries and discarded PCBs), pre-
concentration of iron ores, and separation of Celestite,
18 S. FARAJZADEH AND S. CHEHREH CHELGANI
Bentonite, Tungsten ore, chromite,[73] Nickel laterites,
limestone and other minerals. There are two key ele­
ments to the future application and development of FCs:
First, exploring their integration with other processes,
which might enhance the recovery of a target mineral
while lowering manufacturing costs, and second, their
modeling, which could help to understand the intercor­
relations between affective variables better.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the
work featured in this article.
ORCID
S. Chehreh Chelgani http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2265-
6321
References
[1] Das, A.; Sarkar, B. Advanced Gravity Concentration of
Fine Particles: A Review. Mineral Process. Extr. Metall.
Rev. 2018, 39(6). DOI: 10.1080/08827508.2018.1433176.
[2] Chen, Q.; Yang, H.; Tong, L.; Niu, H.; Zhang, F.;
Chen, G. Research and Application of A Knelson
Concentrator: A Review. Miner. Eng. 2020, 152,
106339. DOI: 10.1016/j.mineng.2020.106339.
[3] Dehaine, Q.; Foucaud, Y.; Kroll-Rabotin, J. S.;
Filippov, L. O. Experimental Investigation into the
Kinetics of Falcon UF Concentration: Implications for
Fluid Dynamic-based Modelling. Sep. Purif. Technol.
2019, 215. DOI: 10.1016/j.seppur.2019.01.048.
[4] Ma, L.; Wei, L.; Pei, X.; Zhu, X.; Xu, D. CFD-DEM
Simulations of Particle Separation Characteristic in
Centrifugal Compounding Force Field. Powder
Technol. 2019, 343, 11–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.
powtec.2018.11.016.
[5] Nayak, A.; Jena, M. S.; Mandre, N. R. Application of
Enhanced Gravity Separators for Fine Particle
Processing: An Overview. J. Sustainable Metall. 2021,
(2). DOI: 10.1007/s40831-021-00343-5.
[6] Katwika, C. N.; Kime, M.-B.; Kalenga, P. N. M.;
Mbuya, B. I.; Mwilen, T. R. Application of Knelson
Concentrator for Beneficiation of Copper–cobalt Ore
Tailings. Mineral Process. Extr. Metall. Rev. 2019, 40
(1), 35–45. DOI: 10.1080/08827508.2018.1481057.
[7] Peer, F.; Mongwe, A.; Van Heerden, J. H. P.
A Preliminary Investigation into the Metallurgical
Efficiency of an Enhanced Gravity Separator. J. South
Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 2002, 102(4), 251–253.
[8] Yang, X. Beneficiation Studies of Tungsten ores–A
Review. Miner. Eng. 2018, 125, 111–119. DOI:
10.1016/j.mineng.2018.06.001.
[9] Abela, R. L. Centrifugal Concentrators in Gold
Recovery and Coal Processing. Extraction Metallurgy
Africa 1997, 25–26.
[10] Deveau, C. Improving Fine Particle Gravity Recovery
through Equipment Behavior Modification. 38th
Annual Meeting of the Canadian Mineral Processors
2006, 31: 501–517.
[11] Laplante, A. R.; Buonvino, M.; Veltmeyer, A.;
Robitaille, J.; Naud, G. A Study of the Falcon
Concentrator. Can. Metall. Q. 1994, 33(4). DOI:
10.1179/cmq.1994.33.4.279.
[12] Laplante, A. R.; Nickoletopoulos, N. Validation of
a Falcon Model with a Synthetic Ore. Can. Metall. Q.
1997, 36(1). DOI: 10.1016/S0008-4433(96)00031-6.
[13] McAlister, S.; Armstrong, K. C. Development of the
Falcon Concentrators. Preprints-Society of Mining
Engineers of Aime 1998.
[14] Foucaud, Y.; Dehaine, Q.; Filippov, L. O.; Filippova, I. V.
Application of Falcon Centrifuge as a Cleaner Alternative
for Complex Tungsten Ore Processing. Minerals 2019, 9
(7). DOI: 10.3390/min9070448.
[15] Norgren, A.; Anderson, C. Ultra-Fine Centrifugal
Concentration of Bastnaesite Ore. Metals 2021, 11(10),
1501. DOI: 10.3390/met11101501.
[16] Kroll-Rabotin, J. S.; Bourgeois, F.; Climent, É. Fluid
Dynamics Based Modelling of the Falcon Concentrator
for Ultrafine Particle Beneficiation. Miner. Eng. 2010, 23
(4). DOI: 10.1016/j.mineng.2009.10.001.
[17] Xian, Y.; Tao, Y.; Ma, F.; Li, M. Study on Flow Field in
Falcon Separator by High-speed Dynamic Photography
and CFD Simulation. Energy Sources Part A. 2020. DOI:
10.1080/15567036.2020.1829205.
[18] Luttrell, G. H.; Honaker, R. Q.; Phillips, D. I. Enhanced
Gravity Separators: New Alternatives for Fine Coal
Cleaning. 12th International Coal Prep. Conference
1995.
[19] Falconer, A. Gravity Separation: Old Technique/new
Methods. Physical Separation in Science and
Engineering 2003, 12(1). DOI: 10.1080/
1478647031000104293.
[20] Kroll-Rabotin, J. S.; Bourgeois, F.; Climent, É.
Physical Analysis and Modeling of the Falcon
Concentrator for Beneficiation of Ultrafine Particles.
Int. J. Miner. Process. 2013, 121. DOI: 10.1016/j.
minpro.2013.02.009.
[21] Spencer, S.; Sutherland, D. Stereological Correction of
Mineral Liberation Grade Distributions Estimated by
Single Sectioning of Particles. Image Analysis &
Stereology 2011, 19(3). DOI: 10.5566/ias.v19.p175-182.
[22] Zhu, X. N.; Tao, Y. J.; Sun, Q. X.; Man, Z. P. Enrichment
and Migration Regularity of Fine Coal Particles in
Enhanced Gravity Concentrator. Int. J. Miner. Process.
2017a, 163. DOI: 10.1016/j.minpro.2017.04.007.
[23] Honaker, R. Q.; Wang, D.; Ho, K. Application of
the Falcon Concentrator for Fine Coal Cleaning.
Miner. Eng. 1996, 9(11). DOI: 10.1016/0892-
6875(96)00108-2.
[24] Nayak, N. P.; Pal, B. K. Beneficiation of Banded
Hematite Jasper Using Falcon Concentrator: An
Alternative to Iron Ore Resources. Research Open
Journal of Mineral and Mining Engineering 2013, 1(6),
8–14.

[25] Majumder, A. K.; Lyman, G. J.; Brennan, M.;
Holtham, P. N. Modeling of Flowing Film
Concentrators. Part 1. Water Split Behaviour. Int.
J. Miner. Process. 2006, 80(1). DOI: 10.1016/j.
minpro.2006.01.009.
[26] Ancia, P. H. Comparison of the Knelson and Falcon
Centrifugal Separators. Proc. Conf. on Inovation in
Physical Separation Technologies, Falmouth, UK, 1997,
1997: 53–62.
[27] Laplante, A. R.; Shu, Y. A Comparative Study of Two
Centrifugal Concentrators. In Proc. 25th Ann. Meet;
Canadian Minerals Processors, 1993.
[28] Bhaskar, K. U.; Raju, M. R.; Srivastava, J. K.;
Ramakrishnan, N. CFD Analysis of Water Flow
Behaviour inside a Falcon Bowl, 2006.
[29] Clift, R.; Grace, J. R.; Weber, M. E. Bubbles, Drops, and
Particles, 2005.
[30] Kroll-Rabotin, J.-S.; Climent, É.; Bourgeois, F.
Beneficiation of Concentrated Ultrafine Suspensions
with a Falcon UF Concentrator. Canadian Institute of
Mining Journal 2011, 2(4), 189–198.
[31] Kroll-Rabotin, J. S.; Bourgeois, F.; Climent, É.
Experimental Validation of a Fluid Dynamics Based
Model of the UF Falcon Concentrator in the Ultrafine
Range. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2012, 92. DOI: 10.1016/j.
seppur.2011.10.029.
[32] Zhu, X. N.; Tao, Y. J.; He, Y. Q.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, Q. X.
Pre-concentration of Graphite and LiCoO2 in Spent
Lithium-ion Batteries Using Enhanced Gravity
Concentrator. Physicochem Prob Mineral Process 2018,
54(2). DOI: 10.5277/ppmp1817.
[33] Singh, R. K.; Kishore, R.; Sahu, K. K.; Chalavadi, G.;
Singh, R. Estimation of the Fluid Velocity Profile in the
Stratification Zone of a Falcon Concentrator. Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration 2020, 37(1). DOI: 10.1007/
s42461-019-00133-4.
[34] Gee, B.; Holtham, P.; Dunne, R.; Gregory, S. Recovery of
Fine Gold Particles Using a Falcon ‘B’separator. In:
Deschenes, G. (Ed.), International Symposium for the
Treatment of Gold Ores, 2005.
[35] El-Midany, A. A.; Ibrahim, S. S. Does Calcite Content
Affect Its Separation from Celestite by Falcon
Concentrator? Powder Technol. 2011, 213(1). DOI:
10.1016/j.powtec.2011.07.003.
[36] Ibrahim, S. S.; El Anadoly, B. E.; Farahat, M. M.;
Selim, A. Q.; El-Menshawy, A. H. Separation of Pyritic
Sulfur from Egyptian Coal Using Falcon Concentrator.
Part. Sci. Technol. 2014, 32(6). DOI: 10.1080/
02726351.2014.933458.
[37] Zhu, X. N.; Tao, Y. J.; Sun, Q. X.; Man, Z. P. The Low
Efficiency of Lignite Separation by an Enhanced Gravity
Concentrator. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery,
Utilization and Environmental Effects 2017b, 39(8).
DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2016.1270373.
[38] Zhang, J.; Tao, Y.; Zhang, W.; Shi, Z.; Wang, Y.;
Zhao, Y. Experimental Study on the Macerals
Enrichment of Shenhua Low-rank Coal by Falcon
Centrifugal Concentrator. Energy Sources, Part A:
Recovery, Utilization and Environmental Effects 2019,
41(21). DOI: 10.1080/15567036.2018.1563248.
SEPARATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 19
[39] Roy, S.; Chatterjee, A. Characterisation and Separation
of Pyritic Sulfur from Limestone Using Falcon
Concentrator. Mineral Processing and Extractive
Metallurgy: Transactions of the Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy 2019. DOI: 10.1080/25726641.2019.1633500.
[40] Honaker, R. Q.; Paul, B. C.; Wang, D.; Huang, M.
Application of Centrifugal Washing for Fine-coal
Cleaning. Minerals and Metallurgical Processing 1995,
12(2). DOI: 10.1007/bf03403082.
[41] Namik Atakan Aydogan, and Murat Kademl I. 2020. An
extraction of copper from recycling plant slag by using
falcon concentrator gospodarka surowcami mineral­
nymi – mineral resources management. 35 (1), 117–
128 DOI: 10.24425/gsm.2019.128202.
[42] Batalović, V. Centrifugal Separator, the New Technical
Solution, Application in Mineral Processing. Int.
J. Miner. Process. 2011, 100(3–4), 86–95. DOI:
10.1016/j.minpro.2011.05.007.
[43] Honaker, R. Q. High Capacity Fine Coal Cleaning Using
an Enhanced Gravity Concentrator. Miner. Eng. 1998, 11
(12), 1191–1199. DOI: 10.1016/S0892-6875(98)00105-8.
[44] Tao, Y. J.; Luo, Z. F.; Zhao, Y. M.; Tao, D. Experimental
Research on Desulfurization of Fine Coal Using an
Enhanced Centrifugal Gravity Separator. Journal of
China University of Mining and Technology 2006, 16
(4). DOI: 10.1016/S1006-1266(07)60034-0.
[45] Honaker, R. Q.; Singh, N.; Govindarajan, B. Application
of Dense-medium in an Enhanced Gravity Separator for
Fine Coal Cleaning. Miner. Eng. 2000, 13(4). DOI:
10.1016/S0892-6875(00)00023-6.
[46] Can, M. F.; Özgen, S.; Sabah, E. A Study to Recover Coal
from Turkish Lignite Fine Coal Tailings: Comparison of
Falcon Concentrator and Multi Gravity Separator
(MGS). 27th Annual International Pittsburgh Coal
Conference 2010, PCC 2010 2010, 3.
[47] Oruç, F.; Özgen, S.; Sabah, E. An Enhanced-gravity
Method to Recover Ultra-fine Coal from Tailings:
Falcon Concentrator. Fuel 2010, 89(9). DOI: 10.1016/j.
fuel.2010.04.009.
[48] Zhang, B.; Yang, F.; Akbari, H.; Mohanty, M. K.;
Brodzik, P.; Latta, P.; Hirschi, J. C. Evaluation of a New
Fine Coal Cleaning Circuit Consisting of a Stack Sizer and
a Falcon Enhanced Gravity Concentrator. Int. J. Coal Prep.
Util. 2011, 31(2). DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2010.537987.
[49] Can, M. F.; Sabah, E. Application of Multiple Linear
Regressions and Taguchi Design Method in Clean Coal
Recovery from Lignite Fine Coal Tailings: Comparison
of Multi-gravity Separator (Mgs) and Falcon
Concentrator. Journal of Ore Dressing 2012, 14(28),
26–32. https://search.proquest.com/scholarly-journals
/application-multiple-linear-regressions-taguchi/doc
view/1491436037/se-2?accountid=45153 .
[50] Boylu, F. Modeling of Free and Hindered Settling
Conditions for Fine Coal Beneficiation through
a Falcon Concentrator. Int. J. Coal Prep. Util. 2013, 33
(6). DOI: 10.1080/19392699.2013.818986.
[51] Boylu, F. Autogenous Medium Fine Coal Washing
through Falcon Concentrator. Separation Science and
Technology (Philadelphia) 2014, 49(4). DOI: 10.1080/
01496395.2013.861848.
20 S. FARAJZADEH AND S. CHEHREH CHELGANI
[52] Zhu, X.; Tao, Y.; Sun, Q.; Man, Z.; Xian, Y. Deashing
and Desulphurization of Fine Oxidized Coal by Falcon
Concentrator and Flotation. Physicochem Prob Mineral
Process 2016, 52(2). DOI: 10.5277/ppmp160210.
[53] Honaker, R. Q.; Das, A. Ultrafine Coal Cleaning
Using a Centrifugal Fluidized-bed Separator. Coal
Preparation 2004, 24(1–2), 1–18. DOI: 10.1080/
07349340490467668.
[54] Nayak, N. P.; Pal, B. K. Separation Behaviour of Iron Ore
Fines in Kelsey Centrifugal Jig, 2013.
[55] Sharma, J.; Sharma, T.; Mandre, N. R. Processing of
Goethitic Iron Ore Fines. Journal of the Institution of
Engineers (India): Series D 2015, 96(2), 143–149. DOI:
10.1007/s40033-015-0075-7.
[56] El-khalek, N. A. A.; Naser, M. I.; Yassin, K. E.; Al-
Kelesh, H. Studying the Reduction Behavior of Eastern
Desert Iron after Beneficiation Using Falcon
Concentrator. Journal of Ore Dressing 2014, 16(31), 11.
[57] Vapur, H.; Top, S.; Altiner, M.; Uçkun, Ş.; Sarikaya, M.
Comparison of Iron Ores Upgraded with Falcon
Concentrator and Magnetic Separators Assisted by
Coal Reduction-conversion Process. Part. Sci. Technol.
2020, 38(4). DOI: 10.1080/02726351.2018.1548532.
[58] Wu, C. Falcon Centrifugal Concentrator for Gravity
Upgrading of Taconite Concentrate, 1999.
[59] Lins, F. F.; Veiga, M. M.; Stewart, J. A.; Papalia, A.;
Papalia, R. Performance of a New Centrifuge (Falcon)
in Concentrating a Gold Ore from Texada Island, B.C.,
Canada. Miner. Eng. 1992, 5(10–12), 1113–1121. DOI:
10.1016/0892-6875(92)90153-Z.
[60] Alp, I.; Celep, O.; Deveci, H.; Vicil, M. Recovery of Gold
from a Free-milling Ore by Centrifugal Gravity
Separator. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology
Transaction B- Engineering 2008, 32(B1), 67–71.
https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/ViewPaper.aspx?id=
105880 .
[61] Önel, Ö.; Tanriverdi, M. The Use of Falcon
Concentrator to Determine the Gravity Recoverable
Gold (GRG) Content in Gold Ores. Inzynieria
Mineralna 2016, 17(1).
[62] Zhang, Y.; He, Y.; Zhang, T.; Zhu, X.; Feng, Y.;
Zhang, G.; Bai, X. Application of Falcon Centrifuge in
the Recycling of Electrode Materials from Spent
Lithium Ion Batteries. J. Cleaner Prod. 2018, 202. DOI:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.133.
[63] Wen, X.; Duan, C.; Jiao, H.; Zhao, Y.; Zhou, X.; Song, S.
Study on Metals Recovery from Discarded Printed
Circuit Boards by Physical Methods. IEEE
International Symposium on Electronics and the
Environment 2005. https://doi.org/10.1109/isee.2005.
1437005 .
[64] Duan, C.; Wen, X.; Shi, C.; Zhao, Y.; Wen, B.; He, Y.
Recovery of Metals from Waste Printed Circuit Boards by
a Mechanical Method Using a Water Medium. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2009, 166(1). DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.11.060.
[65] Zhu, X. N.; Tao, Y. J.; Zhang, L. Numerical Simulation
of Flow Field in Enhanced Gravity Concentrator.
Physicochem Prob Mineral Process 2018, 54(3). DOI:
10.5277/ppmp1899.
[66] Jordens, A.; Cheng, Y. P.; Waters, K. E. A Review of the
Beneficiation of Rare Earth Element Bearing Minerals.
Miner. Eng. 2013, 41, 97–114. DOI: 10.1016/j.
mineng.2012.10.017.
[67] Gupta, C. K.; Krishnamurthy, N. Extractive Metallurgy
of Rare Earths. Int. Mater. Rev. 1992, 37(1), 197–248.
DOI: 10.1179/imr.1992.37.1.197.
[68] Jordens, A.; Sheridan, R. S.; Rowson, N. A.;
Waters, K. E. Processing a Rare Earth Mineral Deposit
Using Gravity and Magnetic Separation. Miner. Eng.
2014, 62, 9–18. DOI: 10.1016/j.mineng.2013.09.011.
[69] Moustafa, M. I.; Abdelfattah, N. A. Physical and
Chemical Beneficiation of the Egyptian Beach
Monazite. Resource Geology 2010, 60(3), 288–299.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-3928.2010.00131.x.
[70] Filippov, L. O.; Dehaine, Q.; Filippova, I. V. Rare Earths
(La, Ce, Nd) and Rare Metals (Sn, Nb, W) as
By-products of Kaolin Production - Part 3: Processing
of Fines Using Gravity and Flotation. Miner. Eng. 2016,
95. DOI: 10.1016/j.mineng.2016.06.004.
[71] Schriner, D.; Anderson, C. Centrifugal Concentration of
Rare Earth Minerals from Calcitic Gangue. Journal of
Metallurgical Engineering 2015, 4. DOI: 10.14355/
me.2015.04.009.
[72] Özgen, S. Purification with Falcon Gravity
Concentrator Processing of Low-grade Bentonites and
Modeling. Part. Sci. Technol. 2017, 35(3). DOI: 10.1080/
02726351.2016.1160460.
[73] Freire, L. A.; Leite, J. Y. P.; Silva, D. N. D.; Silva, B. G. D.;
Oliveira, J. C. S. Behavior of the Chromite Tailings in
a Centrifugal Concentrator (FALCON). Revista Escola de
Minas 2019, 72(1). DOI: 10.1590/0370-44672018720016.
[74] Liu, Q.; Cui, Z.; Etsell, T. H. Pre-concentration and
Residual Bitumen Removal from Athabasca Oilsands
Froth Treatment Tailings by a Falcon Centrifugal
Concentrator. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2006, 78(4). DOI:
10.1016/j.minpro.2005.10.010.