M Free Peru 2012 PDF

DEPARTMENT OF METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING
COLLEGE OF MINES AND EARTH SCIENCES
Improved Modeling of Metal

Extraction and Electrowinning
Michael L. Free
Department of Metallurgical Engineering
University of Utah
Ore leaching has important

application constraints that
need to be considered to
predict performance
acid dissolution of
Important mineral
precipitation product layer
factors include
surface
dissolution,
product layer
precipitation,
mineral
alteration, and
interior host-rock particle
penetration. Interior penetration mineral alteration product layer

Valuable Mineral Particle Classification

• Fully Locked (dominant if the initial size of
valuable mineral particles [vmp] is much
smaller than host rock particles [hrp])
• Partially Locked (dominant if the initial size
of valuable mineral particles is similar to
host rock particles)
• Liberated (dominant if the initial size of
valuable mineral particles is much larger
than host rock particles)
Based on size distributions of

valuable mineral particles and
host rock particles, the
probability for each classification
(fully locked, partially locked, or
liberated) can be determined.
Comparison of valuable and host rock particle size distributions

valuable mineral particle host rock particle
size distribution size distribution
hrp size hrp size

f(r)
Partially Partially or
or fully fully locked
liberated valuable
vmp mineral
particle (vmp)
rvmp50 rhrp50
size
If the selected valuable mineral particle is larger than the host rock particle,
the valuable mineral particle is classified as a liberated particle because it
cannot reside within the corresponding host rock particle:
vmp hrp
Liberation probability can be described by:

r r
PLib    f ( rhrp  )rhrp f ( rvmp  )rvmp ... for ( rvmp  rhrp )
2 2
rhrp rvmp
Classification of particles can be made by picking and

comparing particles from each distribution:
vmp hrp
The cumulative fraction of particles below a specified size

can be estimated using a cumulative size probability
function such as the Rosin-Rammler function:
r s
P( r )  1  [exp( ( *
) )]
r
in which r* is the host rock particle reference size at with 62.3 % of the
material passes as undersize, P is the probability or fraction of generally
liberated particles at the specified r, r is the particle size that is
evaluated, and s is a constant (generally between 1 and 2). Thus, the
fraction of particles between discrete intervals can be estimated by:
r r
(r  ) (r  )
r 2 ) s ]  [exp  ( 2 ) s ]) r
f (r  )  ([exp  (
2 r* r*
The fraction of partially locked nonliberated particles is based on the partial

locking zone volume fraction.
( rhrp  rvmp )3
PPartialLock  1  3
; for( rvmp  rhrp )
rhrp
valuable mineral particle (vmp)
host rock particle (hrp) rvmp
When the center of
the vmp is between
Locking classification rhrp and (rhrp – rvmp)
is based on center the vmp is classified
point position of the r as partially locked.
vmp r
vmp relative to rhrp. hrp Otherwise, it is fully
locked.
zone of partial locking zone of full locking
Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly, 47(3), 277-284, 2008.

The estimated probability of each classification is found using:

* * * *
rvmp rhrp nvmp rvmp rhrp nhrp
Plib.est  exp( ( *
) )(1  exp( ( *
) ))
rvmp rhrp
 rvmp
* * * * * *
rvmp rhrp rvmp rhrp rhro
))][ 1   (  rvmp
nvmp nhrp
PPartially Locked .est  [1  exp( ( *
) )(1  exp( ( *
) *
) 3 ]...( for...rhrp
* *
)
rvmp rhrp rhrp
* * * *
rvmp rhrp rvmp rhrp
 rvmp
nvmp nhrp
PPartially Locked .est  [1  exp( ( *
) )(1  exp( ( *
) *
))]...( for...rhrp *
)
rvmp rhrp
 rvmp
* * * * * *
rvmp rhrp rvmp rhrp rhro
))][ (  rvmp
nvmp nhrp
PFully Locked .est  [1  exp( ( *
) )(1  exp( ( *
) *
) 3 ]...( for...rhrp
* *
)
rvmp rhrp rhrp
PFullyLocked .est  0...( for...rhrp

*
 rvmp
*
)
This approach describes measured exposed mineral well

1
Fraction of Valuable Mineral Liberated
0.9
Part.Lock
0.8
Full.Lock
0.7
Exposed
(calc.)
0.6 Exposed
(meas)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1 1 10 100
rhrp/rvmp
Kinetics are determined using weighted models:

Liberated Mineral (Pure Mineral Leaching):
k RC rvmp
t ( rvmp ) lib  (1  (1   lib )1 / 3 )
Cx
Partially Locked Mineral (Pure Mineral Leaching):

4
t (rvmp ) lib  [ ]klib rvmp [1  (1   lib ) y ]
4
(  )2/ 3
3
Fully Locked Mineral (Shrinking Core Model):
S f rhrp
2
2
t ( rhrp ) FL  [1   FL  (1   FL ) 2 / 3 ]
3M wC x 2 Deff 3
The combined model, based on valuable mineral association with

host rock particles fits measured data reasonably well.
0.5
Model pH 1.5
0.45
Measured pH 1.5
0.4
Fraction Reacted
0.35 Model pH 2.5
0.3 Measured pH 2.5

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 500000 1000000
Time (sec)
The combined model, based on valuable mineral association with

host rock particles fits measured data reasonably well.
1
0.9 Model 820 microns
0.8
Fraction Reacted
Measured 820 microns

0.7 Model 1420 microns
0.6
Measured 1420 microns
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 500000 1000000
Time (sec)
Small scale leaching tests nearly always utilize

small particles to decrease reaction time.
Small particles contain a larger fraction of
material that is liberated or partially locked.
Knowing the fraction of material in each
category allows for a more correct
determination of the relevant constants that
can then be used to predict leaching using
larger particles provided that the appropriate
mineral distribution information is available.
What is the effect of comminution on the

liberated, partially-locked, and fully-locked
valuable mineral particles?
Consider a cube of valuable mineral in two locations inside

of a host rock particle
This estimation method or tool assumes uniform binding

and strength of the valuable and host rock phases.
The corresponding sizes and progeny scenario probabilities are:
8 progeny probability with an average of 1/8 th of

original volume and 1/2 of original size d:
( 2d ) 3
P8 
D3
4 progeny probability with an average of 1/4 of original volume
and (1/4)1/3 or 0.63 of original size d:
3[ D(2d )  (2d ) ]
2 3
P4 
D3
2 progeny probability with an average of 1/2 of original volume and

(1/24)1/3 or 0.794 of original size d:
1
12[2d ( D  d ) 2 ]
P2  2
D3
0 progeny probability with an average of original size d:
P0  1  P8  P4  P2
The resulting probability based size represents a reasonable
estimate of the progeny size resulting from fracturing the host rock
particle to one half of its original size.
The effectiveness of comminution on liberation decreases

rapidly below an initial size ratio of 10 to 1
(assumes 50 % rhrp reduction ) 2
hrp/vmp size reduction factor
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0 20 40 60 80
initial rhrp/rvmp
MODELING OF
ELECTROWINNING
Electrowinning is the process of reducing metal by applying a negative potential to an electrode (cathode) on which the
metal deposits by means of a power supply and a counter electrode and the associated reaction(s).
electrons
Anode (+) V Cathode (-)
Gas bubbles
M
H2O Other
reactions 2e-
2e-
also occur.
M2+
2H+ + 0.5 O2
The mass of the deposit is related to

Faraday’s Law, which can be expressed as:
imetal Aw Acathode t
M
nF
where M is the mass of metal deposited, imetal is the
current density associated with the measured metal
deposition (assuming 100 % current efficiency), n is the
number of electrons transferred per mole of metal
reduction, F is the Faraday constant (96,485 Coulombs
per mole of electrons transferred), and Aw is the atomic
weight of the metal that is deposited.
Energy Consumption is expressed as:
Energy  IEapplied t  icathode Acathode Eapplied t
where Eapplied is the overall voltage applied to the

electrochemical cell.
Substitution of the equation for mass of the

deposit into the expression for energy
consumption per unit of metal leads to:
nFicathode Eapplied

Awimetal
The current efficiency, , is the ratio of the

amount of current theoretically needed to deposit
a unit mass of metal divided by the actual current
consumed at the cathode per unit mass of metal,
which can be expressed mathematically as:
imetal

icathode
Consequently, both voltage and current density

information must be determined to determine the
energy consumption per unit of metal produced.
Voltage and current information can be

determined by appropriate application
of thermodynamics, mass transport, and
electrochemical kinetics.
The general form for chemical equations

can be expressed as:

ne  
zj
vjX j
j
where vj is the stoichiometric coefficient of the

species, X is the chemical formula of species “j”,
zj is the charge of species “j”, n is the number of
electrons in half-cell reactions, which must be
written cathodically or as reduction reactions.
Specific equations considered in this

example include:
3 
 e  Fe 2  
Fe 2H  e  H 2
Fe 3  SO42   FeSO 4 O2  4 H   4e  2 H 2O
  2 2 2 
FeSO 4  e  Fe  SO4 Cu  2e  Cu
2 
 Zn  2e  Zn
H  SO42   HSO4
The free energy of a reaction is expressed

as: vj
o
Gr  Gr  RT ln  a j
j
in which R is the gas constant, T is the absolute

temperature, and ajvj is the activity of species “j”.
The standard free energy of a reaction, Gro, is
expressed as:
Gro   v j G of
j j
At equilibrium, the free energy of the reaction equals

zero and the equilibrium constant may be used to
represent the equilibrium activity relationship between
the species:
Gro   RT ln K
where:
vj
K eq   a j
j
The activity of an ion in aqueous media can be expressed

as: a j   jm j
The equilibrium electrochemical potential for

each half-cell reaction in the system is
determined based on free energy using the
Nernst Equation:
RT
ln  a j
o vj
Eeq  E 
nF j
o Gro
E 
RT
The rate of each half-cell reaction can be expressed by:

Csa a  a F Csc c   c F
i  k ' [Cba ( ) exp( )  Cbc ( ) exp( )]
Cba RT Cbc RT
in which i is the current density, a is the anodic charge transfer
coefficient, F is the Faraday constant,  is the surface overpotential
or the difference between the surface potential (Esurf) and the
equilibrium reaction potential (Eeq), R is the gas constant, T is the
absolute temperature, k’ is constant that is directly related to the
equilibrium exchange current density, Cb is the bulk concentration,
Cs is the surface concentration, and λ is a factor that depends upon
reaction mechanisms and related factors and it is usually between
0.25 and 1 and c is the cathodic charge transfer coefficient. :
The transfer of electrons and charge must balance, thus

the system of Butler-Volmer equations that applies to a
given reaction scenario is subject to the constraint that:
 I 0
When all currents are associated with the same
homogenous surface:
 i 0
The current density of ion transport consists

of the sum of the ion flux densities of all ions
in the system:
i  F  z j N j   F 2E  z 2j u j c j  FV  z j c j  F  z j D j c j
j j j j
where Nj is the flux density of species “j”, cj is
the concentration of species “j” and uj, the ion
mobility of species “j”, is:
Dj RT
uj  Dj 
6 r j
RT
The effect of gas generation on solution

conductivity, which is inversely related to
resistivity, is often approximated using the
Maxwell equation:   1  f
f
1
2
Where k is the conductivity adjustment factor and f is the
void fraction associated with gas generation. In this
investigation the proportionality constant relating current
density associated with oxygen production and void
fraction was determined using experimental data (0.0002
m2/A within the range of 50 to 2000 A/m2 for the oxygen
evolution reaction).
Fluid flow can be determined using the Navier-

Stokes equation:
V
[  (V  )V ]  p  gh  2V
t
in which  is the density of the fluid, V is the
velocity, p is the pressure, g is the gravitational
acceleration, h is height, and  is viscosity.
Conservation of mass in fluid flow leads to the
equation of continuity:

   ( V )  0
t
The effect of the auxiliary cathode reactions and short

circuits on current efficiency can be mathematically
written as:
icathode  imetal  iauxilliary  ishort circuit  imetal iother
The corresponding effect on current efficiency is,

therefore:
imetal

imetal   iother
Comparison of measured and predicted data

Table 1: Comparison of model predictions and experimental
data* for current efficiency and energy consumption for zinc
electrowinning (55 gpl Zn, 35oC, 500 A/m2)
H2SO4 Predicted Measured Predicted Measured

Concentration Current Current Energy Use Energy Use
(gpl) Efficiency Efficiency (kWhr/ton) (kWhr/ton)
65 98.1 97.4 2730 2912
110 96.1 95.7 2730 2870
155 93.5 93.6 2671 2773
*G. W. Barton and A. C. Scott, Validated Mathematical Model for a Zinc

Electrowinning Cell,” J. of Applied Electroch., 22(2), 1992, 104-115.
Comparison of measured and predicted data

Table 1: Comparison of model predictions and experimental
data* for current efficiency and energy consumption for zinc
electrowinning (55 gpl Zn, 35oC, 500 A/m2) (US$ 0.03/kwhr)
H2SO4 Predicted Measured Predicted Cost Actual Cost

Concentration Current Current ($US/ton) ($US/ton)
(gpl) Efficiency Efficiency
65 98.1 97.4 81.90 87.36
110 96.1 95.7 81.90 86.10
155 93.5 93.6 80.13 83.19
*G. W. Barton and A. C. Scott, Validated Mathematical Model for a Zinc

Electrowinning Cell,” J. of Applied Electroch., 22(2), 1992, 104-115.
Energy Use per Ton of Cu versus Current Density

2000
Energy Per Metric Ton (kWhr/ton)
1900
1800 42 gpl Cu2+, 160 gpl
1700 H2SO4, 0.06 gpl
1600 Fe3+, and 0.06 gpl
1500 Fe2+ at 60oC using a
1400
lead anode in a cell
Measured
with electrodes
1300 Predicted
spaced 1 cm apart.
1200
1100
1000
0 200 400 600 800
Current Density (A/m2)

Energy Cost per Ton of Cu versus Current Density
55
Electricity Cost Per Metric Ton ($US/ton)
Measured
53
Predicted 42 gpl Cu2+, 160 gpl
H2SO4, 0.06 gpl
51 (Assumes $0.03 per kilowatt hour)
Fe3+, and 0.06 gpl
Fe2+ at 60oC using a
49
lead anode in a cell
with electrodes
47 spaced 1 cm apart.
45
0 200 400 600 800
Current Density (A/m2)

Another factor that affects electrowinning performance is the

physical qualities of the cathode such as roughness and
nonuniform deposition. If the cathode has areas of high
growth, short-circuiting may occur, which lowers current
efficiency and requires additional maintenance and personnel
costs. Areas of high growth are often associated with areas
with high rates of deposition. Some of these effects can be
determined by appropriate modeling as well as by control of
surface roughness.
Electrodeposit roughness has a substantial

impact on the properties of the deposited film
or the crystals that are harvested from
cathodes
Rough deposits can lead to short circuiting in

electrolysis or entrapment of electrolyte or
gasses.
Electrodeposit roughness is generally

controlled by:
• Initial Surface Topography
• Coating Thickness
• Nucleation
• Growth
Roughness on smooth surfaces is a

function of nucleation and growth.
Low nucleus density results High nucleus density results
initially in rough surfaces initially in smoother surfaces
growth
substrate
Height from low

to high point
Original nucleus
Initial surface roughness is reduced by higher nucleus density

Nucleation and growth are the result

of the electrochemical and physical
properties that can be described
using thermodynamics,
electrochemical kinetics, ion
transport, fluid flow, and nucleation
equations.
Effect of mass transport

For mass transport controlling the current flow in
then the expression for the diffusion controlled
deposition rate, iL is
iL=nFDCb/d
where iL is the diffusion controlled deposition rate (Amp/area),

F is Faraday constant,
n is the number of electrons transferred,
D is the diffusivity of the reacting species,
d is the thickness of the diffusion boundary layer
Cb is the bulk concentration.
Often, the combination of diffusion and electrochemical kinetics

are sufficient to predict electrochemical reaction rates
The closer the deposition current is to the

mass transport limited current density under
steady-state conditions, the closer the
surface concentration of depositing species
approaches zero. As the surface
concentration approaches zero, the lower the
Nernst Potential becomes and the greater the
required applied potential becomes to begin
nucleation. Consequently, as i/il approaches
one, it becomes difficult to initiate new
nuclei, thereby increasing the tendency for
growth from limited nuclei.
Under mass transport controlled electrodeposition, surface asperities receive

more of the available flux of depositing ions than areas between asperities.
Consequently, asperities grow faster than other areas. As the asperities grow
rapidly and nuclei initiate and grow on the asperities, dendritic, granular
deposits become the dominant morphology.
ion flux lines ion flux lines
asperity asperity
Nucleation and Growth are Often

Partially Controlled Using Additives:
• A balance between activators, inhibitors, and
modifiers or smoothing agents is often used to
control electrodeposit morphology.
• Smoothing agents often consist of
macromolecules.
Using organic additives to obtain smooth copper electrodeposits

from halide media.
a) no additive b) 0.013 g/L gelatin
The colors indicate the height of the copper deposit.
Base solution: 0.1 M CuCl, 4 M NaCl, and 0.01 M HCl

Experiment condition: i = -15 mA/cm2, 1,000 RPM, and deposition time = 15 hours
100
no additive
90
RSM Roughness ( m) gelatin 0.1% by volume
80
70 Q = 6000
60 Coulombs/cm2
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1
i/iL
Comparison of RMS roughness and i/il values for electrodeposits (6000
Coulombs per centimeter squared) obtained from a bath containing 0.1
mol/L CuCl, 4.0 mol/L NaCl and 0.01 mol/L HCl under direct current
conditions 25 mA/cm2).
Nucleation is Controlled by:

• Species Concentrations
• Applied Potential
• Substrate Properties
Department of Metallurgical Engineering, University of Utah

Nucleation
The steady-state nuclei formation rate can be described
mathematically by the equation:
dN formation   
 N  exp  2 
dt  Ts 
where Nformation is the number density of new nuclei, t is
time, N is the baseline rate of nuclei formation,  is a
constant ( and N are functions of valence, geometry,
surface energy, and frequency of attachment and
detachment), T is temperature, s is the surface
overpotential. (R. T. C. Choo, J. M. Toguri, A. M El-Sherik, U.Erb,
J.Appl.Electrochem., 25, 384, (1995). E. B. Budevski, in Comprehensive Treatise
of Electrochemistry, Vol. 7, B. E. Conway, J. O’M. Bockris, E. Yeager, S. U. M.
Khan, and R. E. White, Editors, Plenum, New York, p. 441, 1983.)

Copper nucleation on chloride media on copper
a) 100 mV below OCP b) 200 mV below OCP
103 0.7 3
103
0.5
0.6
0.5 0.4
microns
microns
0.4 0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0 155 0 155
microns microns
Solution: Base solution with 0.1 % by volume Gelatin

Experiment condition: Stationary copper electrode, 1 sec deposition
OCP = open circuit potential

Effect of gelatin concentration on RMS Roughness
RMS Roughness ( m) 35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
% by volume gelatin
Solution: Base solution
Experiment condition: i = -25 mA/cm2, 3 hours plating, and 1000 RPM
The surface morphology remains almost the same when the gelatin
Concentrations are in the range of 0.01 to 1% by vol.

Gelatin chemistry
Typical structure:
-Ala-Gly-Pro-Arg-Gly-Glu-4Hyp-Gly-Pro-
Descriptions:
 preparing by the thermal denaturation of collagen,
 containing between 300 - 4000 amino acids.
 containing approximately 33% glycine, 22% proline and 11% hydroxyproline

11% glutamic acid, 11% arginine, and 11% alanine.

Effect of amino
DEPARTMENT acids
OF METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING
40
RMS Roughness ( m)
35
30
25
20
15
Glycine
10
Proline
5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Concentration (Molarity)
Solution: Base solution
Experiment condition: i = -25 mA/cm2, 3 hours plating, and 1,000 RPM
Glycine and proline do not significantly smoothen the surface

morphology as separate entities.

Effect of additive sizes on nucleation rate density
Assumptions:
1) spherical shape additive molecules.
2) depositing ions access to the surface via pore area between the additive molecules
not through the additive molecules.
Hence, the diffusion through the pore area between the adjacent molecules is used to evaluate the effect of
the polymeric additives in electrodeposit nucleation.
Top view Side view
M+ M+ M+
additive
Depositing ions Depositing ions
Effective Effective
additive additive adsorbate Effective adsorbate
layer pore layer
Deposition surface
Depositing ions
3 additive molecules

View of Unit Cell of Macromolecules or Spheres
Top view of Ions diffusing through a pore between additive

molecules or nanoparticles on an electrode that have moved
apart by diffusion during the time needed by the depositing
ions to diffuse to the surface
Depositing Additive or Depositing

ions particle ions
Unit cell length

(2r +(2Dt)0.5)
Additive or Additive or
particle particle

Relevant equations
Finding Cs
Cs φa F(E-E nat.rxnp ) -φc F(E-E nat.rxnp )
i pore = i o [exp( )-exp( )]
Cb RT RT
A
i Appl =i Pore PoreEst
A tot
r 3r+(r+ 2Dads t )( 3(r+ 2Dads t ))-πr 2
A poreEst = ;..for( 2Dads t <( 2-1)r)
2
RT r 2
Dads = t
6πμr 2 Delectroact
Knowing Cs helps to find ηs

RT RT
ηs =E appl -(Eo + ln(γCs )) E nat.rxn =Eo,nat.rxn + lnγCp
nF nF
Obtaining relative nucleation rate density
dN -χ dN -χ
=N exp( 2 )  =exp( 2 )
dt Tηs N dt Tηs
Simultaneous solution of these equations can be performed to determine
the effects of adsorbate molecules on surface nucleation.
Theoretical values vs. Experimental values
1
Relative Nucleation Rate Density
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3 Theoretical Values
0.2 Experimental Values SiO2
0.1 Experimental Values PEG &PEO
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Effective Adsorbate Radius (nm)
Molecular weights can confine the plating so that

the nucleation rate density increases at a reasonable size.

Deposit Morphology Modeling (effect of fluid flow and current)
Arrows COLLEGE OF MINES AND EARTH SCIENCES
represent
local fluid
velocity
vectors.
Colors
represent
depositing
species
conc.
White
above the
thin dark
lower line
represents
the deposit.
Modeled using Comsol Multiphysics Software with significant modifications

68
Deposit Morphology Modeling (effect of fluid flow and current)
Arrows
represent
local
current
vectors.
Colors Axis
represent
depositing values
species are in
conc.
cm
White
above the
thin dark
lower line
represents
the deposit.
Modeled using Comsol Multiphysics Software with significant modifications

69
2.5
EXPERIMENTAL DATA
RMS ROUGHNESS (m)

2
MODEL PREDICTION
1.5
0.5
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80
i/iL
Comparison of RMS roughness and i/il values for predicted and

measured results. Predictions were based on a solution obtained using
the previous equations associated with copper electrodeposits obtained
from a bath containing 0.1 mol/L CuCl, 4.0 mol/L NaCl and 0.01 mol/L HCl
under direct current conditions.
Improved methods of modeling

provide tools to more appropriately
include natural phenomena in
predictions that can be used to
optimize performance of metal
extraction and electrowinning
operations

M Free Peru 2012 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

M Free Peru 2012 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

DEPARTMENT OF METALLURGICAL ENGINEERING

COLLEGE OF MINES AND EARTH SCIENCES

Improved Modeling of Metal

Ore leaching has important

penetration. Interior penetration mineral alteration product layer

Valuable Mineral Particle Classification

Based on size distributions of

Comparison of valuable and host rock particle size distributions

hrp size hrp size

Liberation probability can be described by:

Classification of particles can be made by picking and

The cumulative fraction of particles below a specified size

The fraction of partially locked nonliberated particles is based on the partial

zone of partial locking zone of full locking

Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly, 47(3), 277-284, 2008.

The estimated probability of each classification is found using:

PFullyLocked .est  0...( for...rhrp

This approach describes measured exposed mineral well

Kinetics are determined using weighted models:

Partially Locked Mineral (Pure Mineral Leaching):

The combined model, based on valuable mineral association with

0.35 Model pH 2.5

0.3 Measured pH 2.5

The combined model, based on valuable mineral association with

Measured 820 microns

Small scale leaching tests nearly always utilize

What is the effect of comminution on the

Consider a cube of valuable mineral in two locations inside

This estimation method or tool assumes uniform binding

The corresponding sizes and progeny scenario probabilities are:

8 progeny probability with an average of 1/8 th of

2 progeny probability with an average of 1/2 of original volume and

The effectiveness of comminution on liberation decreases

Anode (+) V Cathode (-)

The mass of the deposit is related to

Energy Consumption is expressed as:

Energy  IEapplied t  icathode Acathode Eapplied t

where Eapplied is the overall voltage applied to the

Substitution of the equation for mass of the

The current efficiency, , is the ratio of the

Consequently, both voltage and current density

Voltage and current information can be

The general form for chemical equations

where vj is the stoichiometric coefficient of the

Specific equations considered in this

The free energy of a reaction is expressed

in which R is the gas constant, T is the absolute

At equilibrium, the free energy of the reaction equals

The activity of an ion in aqueous media can be expressed

The equilibrium electrochemical potential for

The rate of each half-cell reaction can be expressed by:

The transfer of electrons and charge must balance, thus

The current density of ion transport consists

The effect of gas generation on solution

Fluid flow can be determined using the Navier-

The effect of the auxiliary cathode reactions and short

icathode  imetal  iauxilliary  ishort circuit  imetal iother

The corresponding effect on current efficiency is,

Comparison of measured and predicted data

H2SO4 Predicted Measured Predicted Measured

*G. W. Barton and A. C. Scott, Validated Mathematical Model for a Zinc

Comparison of measured and predicted data