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

net/publication/346541251

The SuCy Process: A more efficient and safer

technology to recover cyanide and copper in
cyanidation plants

Conference Paper · October 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10213.63208

CITATIONS READS

0 114

8 authors, including:

Humberto Estay René Ruby-Figueroa

University of Chile Universidad Tecnológica Metropolitana
67 PUBLICATIONS   446 CITATIONS    52 PUBLICATIONS   935 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Proyecto Fondef ID19I10202, “Integrated phenomenological model of sulfide heap leaching from theory to the
industrial application” View project

Proyecto AMTC SEMILLA-National Research Networking – “Development of non-evaporative process to

concentrate and purify Lithium brines”. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Humberto Estay on 01 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The SuCy Process: A more efficient and safer
technology to recover cyanide and copper in
cyanidation plants
H. Estay1*, R. Ruby-Figueroa2, M. Gim-Krumm1, M. Quilaqueo1, G.
Seriche1, S. Díaz-Quezada1, I. Cortés2, L. Barros1
1AdvancedMining Technology Center (AMTC), Universidad de Chile
2Universidad
Tecnológica Metropolitana
*humberto.estay@amtc.cl
 Introduction
Percent total copper
Mineral Formula dissolved 3CN- + Cu Cu(CN)3-2
23 °C 45 °C
Azurite 2CuCO3Cu(OH)2 94.5 100
• Increases cyanide consumption
Malachite 2CuCO3(OH)2 90.2 100 Cu(CN)2- • Increases cyanide content in leach tails
• Reduces of gold extraction in the
Chalcocite Cu2S 90.2 100
Cu(CN)3-2 adsorption processes
Covellite CuS 95.6* -
Native
Cu(CN)4-3 • … INCREASES THE OPERATIONAL COSTS
copper
Cu 90.0 100
• … REDUCES PROFITABILITY
Cuprite Cu2O 85.5 100 Cu2S
Bornite FeS 2Cu2S CuS 70.0 100
Enargite Cu3AsS4 65.8 75.1
Tatrahedrite Cu12Sb4S13 21.9 43.7
Cu(CN)3-2 SART
Crysocolla CuSiO3 H2O 11.8 15.7
Process
Chalcopyrite CuFeS2 5.6 8.2
*Value obtained from 5.15 g NaCN per g Cu at room
temperature.
CN-
 H2SO4
Introduction – SART Process
Cyanide NaSH Treated
Solution Air
Flocculant NaOH

Scrubber
SART Reactor Lime
Flocculant
Precipitate THK

NaOH

Wash Neut Reactor

Water Treated
Gypsum THK Solution
Pp Filter CN-
SART, pH 4-5:
2𝐶𝑁 − + 𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4 ↔ 2𝐻𝐶𝑁(𝑎𝑐) + 𝑆𝑂4−2 Cu2S Neut, pH 10.5:
𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4 + 𝐶𝑎(𝑂𝐻)2 𝐶𝑎𝑆𝑂4 ∙ 2𝐻2 𝑂 Wash Gypsum
2𝐶𝑢(𝐶𝑁)−2 +𝑆 −2
+ 3𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4 ↔ 𝐶𝑢2 𝑆(𝑠) + 6𝐻𝐶𝑁(𝑎𝑐) + 3𝑆𝑂4−2 Water Filter
3 2𝐻𝐶𝑁 + 𝐶𝑎(𝑂𝐻)2 𝐶𝑎(𝐶𝑁)2 + 2𝐻2 𝑂 Gypsum
 Introduction
Suspension 1. Solids content in overflow > 50 mg/L
Cu2S Flocculant 2. Low rise rate (2 - 3.5 m3/m2h)
HCN
H2S
3. High residences times (> 90 min)
Air
4. Oxygen promotes precipitates re-dissolution
𝐶𝑢2 𝑆 𝑠 + 1 4 𝑂2 + 2𝐻𝐶𝑁 𝑎𝑞 ↔ 𝐶𝑢𝑆 𝑠 + 𝐶𝑢(𝐶𝑁)− +
2 + 𝐻 + 1 2 𝐻2 𝑂

𝐶𝑢2 𝑆 𝑠 + 1 2 𝑂2 + 2𝐻2 𝑆 𝑎𝑞 ↔ 2𝐶𝑢𝑆 𝑠 + 𝐻2 𝑂

Precipitate THK 𝐶𝑢𝑆 𝑠 + 5𝐻𝐶𝑁 𝑎𝑞 + 1 4 𝑂2 ↔ 2𝐶𝑢(𝐶𝑁)− − +
2 + 2𝑆𝐶𝑁 + 4𝐻 + 1 2 𝐻2 𝑂

5. HCN volatilization increases pH, promoting precipitates re-

dissolution − +
𝐶𝑁 + 𝐻 ↔ 𝐻𝐶𝑁(𝑎𝑐)
2𝐶𝑢(𝐶𝑁)−2
3 +𝑆
−2
+ 6𝐻 + ↔ 𝐶𝑢2 𝑆(𝑠) + 6𝐻𝐶𝑁(𝑎𝑐)
6. Recycling could affect the aggregation capacity of
precipitates
Large equipment sizes! 𝐻2 𝑆 𝑎𝑞
0
+ 1 2 𝑂2 ↔ 𝑆 𝑠 + 𝐻2 𝑂

Decline of copper and cyanide recovery!

 New approach – The SuCy Process
Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration Gas membrane absorption (GFMA)

Monhemius, A.J., 1977

M+2 + S-2 = MS
M(CN)3- + S-2 +3H+= MS+3HCN
 New approach – The SuCy Process
H+
Cyanide Treated
S-2
Solution Air

NaOH
MF Membrane Module Pp Filter
NaOH
Scrubber
Membrane Absorption

Precipitation
Wash
Reactor Water Wash
Gypsum Filter
Pp rx, pH 4-5: Water
H+ Cu2S
2𝐶𝑁 − + 𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4 ↔ 2𝐻𝐶𝑁(𝑎𝑐) + 𝑆𝑂4−2
GFMA Module
2𝐶𝑢(𝐶𝑁)−2
3 +𝑆
−2
+ 3𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4 Lime
↔ 𝐶𝑢2 𝑆(𝑠) + 6𝐻𝐶𝑁(𝑎𝑐) + 3𝑆𝑂4−2 Gypsum

GFMA, pH 4-5:
NaOH/
𝐻𝐶𝑁(𝑎𝑐) 𝐻𝐶𝑁(𝑔) H2O
UF Membrane Module

𝐻𝐶𝑁(𝑔) + 𝑁𝑎𝑂𝐻 𝑁𝑎𝐶𝑁 + 𝐻2 𝑂

Neut, pH 10.5: Neut Reactor
2𝐻𝐶𝑁 + 𝐶𝑎(𝑂𝐻)2 𝐶𝑎(𝐶𝑁)2 + 2𝐻2 𝑂 Concentrated Treated
𝐻2 𝑆𝑂4 + 𝐶𝑎(𝑂𝐻)2 𝐶𝑎𝑆𝑂4 ∙ 2𝐻2 𝑂
*Patent pending NaCN solution Solution
 MF/UF prototype Methods GFMA prototype

MF experimental design
Factor Level -1 Level 0 Level +1
[Cu], mg/L 200 1,000 1,800 GFMA experimental design

pH 3.5 4.25 5.0 Factor Level -1 Level 0 Level +1

S2- stoich. dosage, % 100 110 120 pH 3.5 4.25 5.0

Feed Flow, mL/min 355 470 590
UF experimental design
Factor Level -1 Level 0 Level +1
[CO3], mg/L 0 750 1,500
 MF Results
Results

• Copper recovery was higher tan 90% for [Cu] > 500 mg/L

• Permeate Flux ⁓ 1.0 L/m2s for [Cu] > 500 mg/L • Copper recovery increased after MF processing
(displacement of chemical equilibrium)
• pH and NaHS dosage were not significant
• Colloidal behavior at low [Cu] affects copper recovery

Optimal conditions can achieve 1.1 L/m2s Flux and 99.9% Cu recovery!!!!
GFMA Results
Results

pH 3.5 pH 4.25 pH 5.0

• CN Recovery > 95% at 45 min

• Flux HCN ⁓ 3.0 mg/m2s

UF Results
Results
Solids content MF/UF Results

Stage %Solids
MF 18.5
UF 22.1

MF and UF can reach final solids content higher

than the SART process

• Permeate Flux ⁓ 0.3 L/m2s

• Carbonate contents slightly affect Flux

Scale sizing comparison
Results
SART Process

SuCy Process

Equipment volume is reduced significantly by the SuCy Process!!!

Plant sizing and economic evaluation Results
Parameter SuCy SART
Plant capacity, m3/h 200 200
Plant size is reduced 7 times!!!
[Cu], mg/L 1800 1800
Capex could be reduced at least 40%!!!
[CN], mg/L 2500 2500
Rec. Cu, % 95 90
Rec. CN, % 95 90
MF Modules, # 2 -
GFMA Modules, # 2 -
UF Modules, # 4 -
THK Cu Diameter, m - 13
THK Gypsum Diameter, m - 13
Plant Size, m3/(m3/h) 0.46 3.65 MF/UF Modules: 1.2m x 1.2m
GFMA Modules: 1.2m x 0.5m
CAPEX, kUS$/(m3/h) 47 75
OPEX, US$/m3 4.8 – 6.5* 5.1 *Depending on the flow fraction treated on GFMA process, due to NaOH consumption
 Conclusion
The SuCy Process:
• Can produce copper precipitates (high grade) and a concentrated
recovered cyanide solution.
• Produces a more clarified solution, in terms of precipitates and
gypsum, than the SART process.
• Can reach higher copper and cyanide recoveries, due to the
permanent equilibrium displacement.
• Can reduce plant size more than 7 times.
• Can reduce the Capex at least 40% with respect to SART.
• Minimizes the contact of slurries and solution with environment,
reducing the risk of HCN volatilization.
Scientific Support
Acknowledgment and Funding

Fondef Grant ID17I10021

Basal Fund, Grant AFB180004
 References
• Breuer, P. (2015) Dealing With Copper in Gold Ores: Implemented and Future Approaches, Proceedings of ALTA-Gold Precious Metals Sessions, ALTA 2015, Perth,
Australia.
• Estay, H. (2018) Designing the SART process – A Review, Hydrometallurgy 176, 147-165.
• Estay, H., Ruby-Figueroa, R., Gim-Krumm, M., Seriche, G., Quilaqueo, M., Cortés, I., Barros, L. Changing the paradigm of conventional clarification in metal sulfide
precipitation: A new separation process based on membrane filtration, Submitted.
• Estay, H., Gim-Krumm, M., Seriche, G., Quilaqueo, M., Barros, L., Ruby-Figueroa, R., Romero, J., Troncoso, E. (2020) Optimizing the SART process: A critical assessment
of its design criteria, Minerals Engineering 146, 106116.
• Estay, H., Ortiz, M., Romero, J. (2013) A novel process based on gas filled membrane absorption to recover cyanide in gold mining, Hydrometallurgy 134-135, 166–176.
• Estay, H., Carvajal, P., Hedjazi, F., Van Zeller, T. (2012) The SART process experience in the Gedabek plant, In: HydroProcess 2012, 4th International Workshop on
Process Hydrometallurgy, Santiago, Chile.
• Fleming, C.A., Melashvili, M. (2016) The SART process: killing the sacred cows In: XXVIII International Mineral Processing Congress (IMPC 2016), Quebec, Canada, 11-
15 September.
• Gim-Krumm, M., Quilaqueo, M., Rojas, V., Seriche, G., Ruby-Figueroa, R., Cortés-Arriagada, D., Romero, J., Troncoso, E., Estay, H. (2019) Impact of precipitate
characteristics and precipitation conditions on the settling performance of a sulfide precipitation process: An exhaustive characterization of the aggregation behavior,
Hydrometallurgy 189, 105150.
• MacPhail, P.K., Fleming, C., Sarbutt, K. (1998) Cyanide Recovery by the SART Process for the Lobo-Marte Project, Chile. Randol Gold and Silver Forum, Denver (April 26-
29).
• Marsden, J.O., House, C.I. (2006) The Chemistry of Gold Extraction, 2nd Edition, SME, USA.
• Monhemius, A.J. (1977) Precipitation diagrams for metal hydroxides, sulphides, arsenates and phosphates, T. I. Min. Metall. C. 86, 202-206
• Simons, A., Breuer, P. (2013) The impact of residence time on copper recovery in Telfer Gold Mine's cyanide recycling process inn: World Gold 2013, Brisbane,
Queensland, Australia. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Melbourne, pp. 189–196, 26–29 September 2013.
 Thank you!!!

View publication stats