๐ Dry vs wet: unexpected results for Arkachan gold ore
Comparison Methods:
โ๏ธ Dry Processing: Crushing (DKD-300) + Grinding (TsMVU-800) + Pneumatic Separation (POS-2000)
โ๏ธ Wet Processing: Gravity Separation with GRG Test (ITOMAK-0.1)
๐ Key Data:
Gold Distribution:
โ๏ธ 27.35% in -0.2+0.1 mm class;
โ๏ธ 11.75% in -0.1+0.071 mm class;
โ๏ธ 23.46% in -0.071 mm class;
โ Total 62.56% in particles <0.2 mm
Method Efficiency:
โ๏ธ pneumatic Separation: 35.25% recovery at 1.8 t/h;
โ๏ธ GRG Test: 73.91% recovery with grinding to 80% passing 0.071 mm.
GRG Test Results by Stage:
โ๏ธ Stage 1 (-1 mm): 40.20% recovery;
โ๏ธ Stage 2 (-0.315 mm): +14.46%;
โ๏ธ Stage 3 (-0.071 mm): +20.88%.
Conclusions:
1. Dry methods are ineffective for fine-grained gold (<100 ยตm).
2. Gravity separation requires fine grinding but achieves high recovery.
3. Major losses are due to incomplete liberation of gold in pyrite.
๐ Full Article:
Matveev ะ.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
๐ Subscribe: @MinSciTech
๐ฌ 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:
โ๏ธ Dry Processing: Crushing (DKD-300) + Grinding (TsMVU-800) + Pneumatic Separation (POS-2000)
โ๏ธ Wet Processing: Gravity Separation with GRG Test (ITOMAK-0.1)
๐ Key Data:
Gold Distribution:
โ๏ธ 27.35% in -0.2+0.1 mm class;
โ๏ธ 11.75% in -0.1+0.071 mm class;
โ๏ธ 23.46% in -0.071 mm class;
โ Total 62.56% in particles <0.2 mm
Method Efficiency:
โ๏ธ pneumatic Separation: 35.25% recovery at 1.8 t/h;
โ๏ธ GRG Test: 73.91% recovery with grinding to 80% passing 0.071 mm.
GRG Test Results by Stage:
โ๏ธ Stage 1 (-1 mm): 40.20% recovery;
โ๏ธ Stage 2 (-0.315 mm): +14.46%;
โ๏ธ Stage 3 (-0.071 mm): +20.88%.
Conclusions:
1. Dry methods are ineffective for fine-grained gold (<100 ยตm).
2. Gravity separation requires fine grinding but achieves high recovery.
3. Major losses are due to incomplete liberation of gold in pyrite.
๐ Full Article:
Matveev ะ.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
๐ Subscribe: @MinSciTech
๐ฌ 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?
๐4โค2๐ฅ1๐1๐ฏ1