Zircon and Apatite Separation Using a Spiral Panning Table: Evaluation of Time and Yield Efficiency May 21,

May 21, 2013

Student Researchers: Brittany Fagin and Ashley Edwards Abstract No: 219530
Type of Session: Poster
Research Advisor: Dr. Chris Mattinson Session Number 27: “T6. Using Detrital Zircon Age Data to Reassemble the Cordilleran Jigsaw Puzzle”
Session Start Time: 1:30 PM
Affiliation: Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA Location: Radisson Hotel and Conference Center, Salon B/C
Poster Booth Number: 15

ABSTRACT METHODS SECOND - The control sample bag is processed with a Frantz Isodynamic Magnetic Separator. RESULTS
7) 8) 8) The non-magnetic
FIRST - All sample fractions received the same treatment before picking a control. portion was directed
Mineral separations concentrate the heavy minerals apatite and zircon All values in graphs are normalized to 1 kg sample.
by gravity into the
necessary to accurately date rock samples, but current methods are 1) 2) 3) Dixie cup on the left
time-consuming, toxic, expensive, and have unknown yield efficiencies. To and the magnetic 13.34
evaluate and improve separation methods, I processed five, ~1.4 kg portion was directed
1388 min
samples (hornblende-biotite tonalite, 65.47 wt % SiO2, 137 ppm Zr, 0.138 by electromagnetism 37 Zircon and Apatite
113
wt % P2O5, collected from the Mt. Stuart Batholith near Leavenworth, WA; into the Dixie cup on Yield / Total Time for
16
expected yields per kg, calculated from CIPW-norm: 300 mg zircon; 3200 the right. Each Trial - This graph
mg apatite) with a new procedure using a spiral panning table (panner) to shows the relationship
wash and pre-concentrate heavy minerals before magnetic, lithium between the zircon and
7) The control (Bag #3), after apatite yields for each
polytungstate (LST) and methylene iodide (MEI) heavy liquid separations. handwashing, was magnetically
The control sample (#3) was hand washed, separated magnetically, and trial, cross-referenced 4.79 4.68
separated with a Frantz with the amount of
processed with LST and MEI, resulting in 33.5 mg zircon and 308.9 mg 1) Chunks of sample fresh from the 2) Sledge hammer, to break sample into 3) Sample pieces were then ground into Isodynamic Magnetic Separator. time for each step. 2.98
apatite. Panner trial #1 used a fast sample feed rate (58.4 g/min) and slow outcrop. ~1 in. diameter pieces (sieve at bottom >500 micron bits. 1099 1.77 1.74
1.43 1.65
rotation speed (13.7 rpm), resulting in 3.7 mg zircon and 1.0 mg apatite. of image). 9) 10) 0.81
0.39
Panner trial #2 used a slow sample feed rate (11.5 g/min), the same slow
rotation speed as trial #1, and yielded 6.1 mg zircon and 6.0 mg apatite. 4) 5) MEANWHILE - Thin section preparation +
Whole-rock geochemistry
Surfactant was used in panner trial #4 to cut surface tension along with a
slow feed rate of 9.1 g/min and the same slow rotation speed as trial #1,
6) 207 min
6 251 min
37
yielding 6.9 mg zircon and 3.4 mg apatite. Last, panner trial #5 used a faster 156 min
6 37 15 15
8
165 min
6 10 6 37
rotation speed (24.7 rpm) and a fast feed rate (36.2 g/min), which produced 9
37
21
22
125 21 4
8
308.9
87
38 126 44
the highest yields: 13.2 mg zircon, 12.9 mg apatite. Compared with the 46 46 46 46
expected yields (above), the yields from both control (~50% purity
separates containing 33.5 mg zircon, 308.9 mg apatite) and panner trials Total Zircon and
(high-purity separates containing 3.7-13.2 mg zircon, 1.0-12.9 mg apatite) Times per Step per Trial - This graph shows the individual times for each step of each Apatite Yields (mg) -
9) This rock sample fortuitously showed
method tested (shows only run-time; set-up and clean-up are assumed to be the same This graph shows the 33.5
were much less, likely due to the loss of small grains and inclusions. The a color difference between the
4) Then sieved to 250 microns. 5) Example of sample divided into for each process). amount of zircon and
panner technique yielded 10x the concentration of zircon than the control, non-magnetic minerals (beaker on the
so toxic MEI would ideally not be needed to separate apatite from zircon in fractions ~1.4 kg. Bag #3 was used as the left) and the magnetic minerals (Dixie 10) Inner processes of the Frantz magnet. apatite yielded from
future projects, making this project’s protocol safer than current methods. control. cup on the right). Also, the difference of Sample flows from right to left. Significant Zircon Purity Difference each method. Control
6) Researcher Brittany cutting a billet apatite yield is too
The experimental process took ~7 hours per sample, compared to ~38 amounts between the non-magnetic
for thin section preparation. large to fit the graph. 12.9 13.2
hours for the control. The greater speed, improved zircon concentration, and the magnetic portions is shown in
THIRD - SPIRAL PANNING - How does it work?
and avoidance of toxic heavy liquids are significant advantages of the this image. FINALLY - Control #3 Zrc Yield 6.9
6.0 6.1
methods in this project similar to the larger, more expensive Gemeni table, 11) 11) Pro-Camel 24 by Camel Heavy Liquid Separations 3.7 3.4
and further development will improve recovery efficiency. Mining Products. Samples Control trial MEI heavy mineral 1.0
Zrc
are fed through the yellow yield. Fewer discernible zircons
16) 16) Set up for lithium 18) alongside many unidentified
funnel and the rotation is polytungstate (LST)
clock-wise. “Lighter” minerals clear-to-white minerals. (Lower
THE PROCESS are washed away and
separation. Image
purity, ~50%).
shows control sample;
Common Beginning Steps collected in the blue bucket. note high quantity of Ttn?
-Hammering, crushing, grinding, sieving (500 µm) Copper bar has water sample remaining at
CONCLUSIONS
-De-magging (remove metal from sample after grinding) nozzles wetting the panner this step.
-Divide sample into ~1.4 kg bags during processing. 14) In conclusion:
14) Panner trials resulted in 1) We were able to improve yield quantity and purity with the use of
Control Panner Trials 13) the spiral panning table.
smaller concentrated portions of
-Sample processed on panner (each heavy minerals to be processed 18) Methylene iodide separation. 2) We were able to modify the panner process to significantly improve
later by the Frantz magnet. 17) Amount of samples and liquid are small. efficiency and yield with each progressive step.
trial varied parameters; feed-rate,
rotation-speed, water-nozzle flow 15) Panner #5 Zrc Yield 3) The control method yielded the largest amount of zircon, but the
-rate/direction, surfactant) quantity was less pure and the process required more time.
-250 µm sieve -Ultrasonic wash (DI water); small ZRC
-Ultrasonic wash (DI water); large volume Panner trials MEI heavy 4) For the majority of the samples, the spiral panning table is
volume -250 µm sieve
Ttn? mineral yield. Much higher preferred for its quicker time, higher yield purity, and the added
-Frantz Isodynamic Magnetic -Frantz Isodynamic Magnetic proportion of zircons to other bonus of possibly skipping the MEI step (this would improve safety
heavy minerals. (Higher purity,
Separator Separator
near ~100%). Note: zircon
because MEI is highly toxic).
-Ultrasonic wash (DI water) -Ultrasonic wash (DI water) 19) Zrc 5) Note that the times displayed in the results section do not include
-Lithium Polytungstate (LST) heavy -Lithium Polytungstate (LST) heavy grain size is larger, possibly due
liquid separation liquid separation
12) 19) Pipetting the final to preferential loss of smaller the time needed to recover the LST and MEI heavy liquids,
-Ultrasonic wash (Ultra-Pure water) -Ultrasonic wash (Ultra-Pure water) batch of heavy minerals grains during panning. contributing to the conclusion that the panner method is better
12) Fortunately, our rock 13) Heavies are transported up
-Methylene Iodide (MEI) heavy liquid -Methylene Iodide (MEI) heavy liquid 15) Microscopic view of heavy yield from the MEI into the filter (very large quantities of LST were needed to process the control
sample showed a prominent the grooves to the center hole
separation separation straight from the panner after drying. of a flask for collection.
color difference between the and depositied in a beaker. 17) Researcher Ashley is excited to see sample; the same amount of liquid was used to process all of the
-Ultrasonic wash (Acetone) -Ultrasonic wash (Acetone) Zircon grain present in the center.
“light” minerals and the zircons sinking through the next heavy panner samples).
-Weigh zircon and apatite yields -Weigh zircon and apatite yields “heavy” minerals. liquid. “It’s raining zircons!”