We present the articles of the third issue of scientific journal "Mining Science and Technologyβ (Russia) for 2024:
The paper presents the results of the dependence of wastewater treatment efficiency on the size of filtering material fractions.
For more information, see the article:
π Ivanova L.A., Prosekov A.Yu., Ivanov P.P. et al. Assessment of the efficiency of wastewater treatment from coal enterprises for suspended solids using various filtering materials. Mining Science and Technology (Russia). 2024;9(3):263-270. https://doi.org/10.17073/2500-0632-2024-03-227
Subscribe to the journal's Telegram channel:
πt.iss.one/MinSciTechπ
#inenglish #MST #wastewater #coal #suspension #filtration #quartzite #treatment #gravity #sedimentation #fraction #coagulation #sump #regeneration #washing #backwashing #dynamic #quarry #sand #crushedstone #zeolite #sorbent #pump #dam #dust #clay #method #technology #hydraulics
The paper presents the results of the dependence of wastewater treatment efficiency on the size of filtering material fractions.
For more information, see the article:
π Ivanova L.A., Prosekov A.Yu., Ivanov P.P. et al. Assessment of the efficiency of wastewater treatment from coal enterprises for suspended solids using various filtering materials. Mining Science and Technology (Russia). 2024;9(3):263-270. https://doi.org/10.17073/2500-0632-2024-03-227
Subscribe to the journal's Telegram channel:
πt.iss.one/MinSciTechπ
#inenglish #MST #wastewater #coal #suspension #filtration #quartzite #treatment #gravity #sedimentation #fraction #coagulation #sump #regeneration #washing #backwashing #dynamic #quarry #sand #crushedstone #zeolite #sorbent #pump #dam #dust #clay #method #technology #hydraulics
mst.misis.ru
Assessment of the efficiency of wastewater treatment from coal enterprises for suspended solids using various filtering materialsβ¦
π4β€1π₯1π1π1
π Dry vs wet: unexpected results for Arkachan gold ore
Comparison Methods:
βοΈ Dry Processing: Crushing (DKD-300) + Grinding (TsMVU-800) + Pneumatic Separation (POS-2000)
βοΈ Wet Processing: Gravity Separation with GRG Test (ITOMAK-0.1)
π Key Data:
Gold Distribution:
βοΈ 27.35% in -0.2+0.1 mm class;
βοΈ 11.75% in -0.1+0.071 mm class;
βοΈ 23.46% in -0.071 mm class;
β Total 62.56% in particles <0.2 mm
Method Efficiency:
βοΈ pneumatic Separation: 35.25% recovery at 1.8 t/h;
βοΈ GRG Test: 73.91% recovery with grinding to 80% passing 0.071 mm.
GRG Test Results by Stage:
βοΈ Stage 1 (-1 mm): 40.20% recovery;
βοΈ Stage 2 (-0.315 mm): +14.46%;
βοΈ Stage 3 (-0.071 mm): +20.88%.
Conclusions:
1. Dry methods are ineffective for fine-grained gold (<100 Β΅m).
2. Gravity separation requires fine grinding but achieves high recovery.
3. Major losses are due to incomplete liberation of gold in pyrite.
π Full Article:
Matveev Π.I., Lebedev I.F., Vinokurov V.R., Lvov E.S. Comparative processing studies of the Arkachan deposit gold-bearing ores using dry separation and classical wet gravity separation methods. Mining Science and Technology (Russia). 2024;9(2):158-169. https://doi.org/10.17073/2500-0632-2023-10-168
π Subscribe: @MinSciTech
π¬ What modern methods could improve dry processing for such ores?
#InEnglish #MST #Mining #Gold #Beneficiation #Crusher #Mill #Separator #DryProcessing #ParticleSize #Pyrite #Sample #Ore #Test #Method #Analysis #Stage #Class #Gravity #FineGrained #Particles #Concentrate #Grinding #Efficiency #Crushing #Recovery #Flowchart #Cycle #Fraction #Balance #Parameter #Mode #Degree #Impact #Abrasion #Subsample #Sludge #Pulp #SizeFraction #Feed #Tailings #Losses #Product #Intergrowths
P.S. For ores with fine-grained gold, classical gravity remains optimal. Are there alternatives?
Comparison Methods:
βοΈ Dry Processing: Crushing (DKD-300) + Grinding (TsMVU-800) + Pneumatic Separation (POS-2000)
βοΈ Wet Processing: Gravity Separation with GRG Test (ITOMAK-0.1)
π Key Data:
Gold Distribution:
βοΈ 27.35% in -0.2+0.1 mm class;
βοΈ 11.75% in -0.1+0.071 mm class;
βοΈ 23.46% in -0.071 mm class;
β Total 62.56% in particles <0.2 mm
Method Efficiency:
βοΈ pneumatic Separation: 35.25% recovery at 1.8 t/h;
βοΈ GRG Test: 73.91% recovery with grinding to 80% passing 0.071 mm.
GRG Test Results by Stage:
βοΈ Stage 1 (-1 mm): 40.20% recovery;
βοΈ Stage 2 (-0.315 mm): +14.46%;
βοΈ Stage 3 (-0.071 mm): +20.88%.
Conclusions:
1. Dry methods are ineffective for fine-grained gold (<100 Β΅m).
2. Gravity separation requires fine grinding but achieves high recovery.
3. Major losses are due to incomplete liberation of gold in pyrite.
π Full Article:
Matveev Π.I., Lebedev I.F., Vinokurov V.R., Lvov E.S. Comparative processing studies of the Arkachan deposit gold-bearing ores using dry separation and classical wet gravity separation methods. Mining Science and Technology (Russia). 2024;9(2):158-169. https://doi.org/10.17073/2500-0632-2023-10-168
π Subscribe: @MinSciTech
π¬ What modern methods could improve dry processing for such ores?
#InEnglish #MST #Mining #Gold #Beneficiation #Crusher #Mill #Separator #DryProcessing #ParticleSize #Pyrite #Sample #Ore #Test #Method #Analysis #Stage #Class #Gravity #FineGrained #Particles #Concentrate #Grinding #Efficiency #Crushing #Recovery #Flowchart #Cycle #Fraction #Balance #Parameter #Mode #Degree #Impact #Abrasion #Subsample #Sludge #Pulp #SizeFraction #Feed #Tailings #Losses #Product #Intergrowths
P.S. For ores with fine-grained gold, classical gravity remains optimal. Are there alternatives?
π4β€2π₯1π1π―1