MASTER'S THESIS

Geometallurgical Characterization of
Zinkgruvans New Orebodies for Their
Flotation Properties

Erdogan Umur Kol

2015

Master of Science (120 credits)

Natural Resources Engineering

Lule University of Technology

Department of Civil, Environmental and Natural Resources Engineering

Abstract
Depletion of existing orebodies forces the mining industry to have a better understanding on new
orebodies in order to have an economical beneficiation. Therefore, traditional evaluation and
forecasting methods are now being supported by more detailed studies using more advanced
techniques. Mineralogical studies give essential data on the deposit but methods applied are
expensive and very time consuming. Geometallurgical characterization techniques provide cheaper
and faster outcomes and if properly applied also information which directly evaluates the
processing properties of the samples. However, generally accepted geometallurgical
characterization techniques are available only for few mineral processing areas. Importantly, for
floatation such a technique does not exist.
In this study, recently discovered Zinkgruvan lead-zinc orebodies were investigated majorly by
automated mineralogy and laboratory batch flotation tests in order to characterize the ore type of
Zinkgruvan and forecast the future production.
Mineralogical studies showed that, recently found orebodies shows similarity in mineral liberation
compared to the ores currently in production. However, significant differences exist in modal
mineralogy and zinc and iron content of sphalerite.
A series of batch flotation test were used to evaluate the behavior of main ore minerals: sphalerite
and galena. Obtained data was used to create floatability component models that were further
applied in simulation by HSC Chemistry 7.1 to give forecast of grades and recoveries in full scale
production.
According to simulations three new orebodies will have recovery and concentrate quality
challenges in the current plant flowsheet and chemical regime. These challenges are related to poor
activation of sphalerite which is most probably due to higher Fe mineral content of new orebodies
compared to currently processed Reference ore.
A geometallurgical characterization technique for Zinkgruvan type lead-zinc ore deposits was
developed. The test enables characterization of any new ore type fast and with low costs. The test
can measure in a case of low zinc recovery if the problem is due to collector deficiency, flotation
residence time, degree of liberation, poor activation of sphalerite or presence of zinc oxide minerals
such as gahnite.
Keywords: Zinkgruvan, zinc lead sulphide flotation, geometallurgy, automated mineralogy,
flotation kinetics, process simulation

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor in Lule University of Technology,
Professor Pertti Lamberg, for sharing his immense knowledge and keeping me on the right path by
his guidance throughout the study. It has been a great pleasure working with you and learning from
you. I would also like to send my greatest appreciation to my supervisor in Zinkgruvan, Mr. Anders
Gustafsson, for his continuous support and attention during this study. Without their persistent help
it would not be possible to complete this thesis.
I also would like to thank to Pierre Henri Koch, Hassna Aitahmed-Ali and Maria Sinche Gonzalez
for always being there and for valuable contributions on the thesis. Your support kept me motivated
against the challenges many times during this study.
Additionally, my sincere gratitude to Lundin Mining Zinkgruvan AB members for providing me
the opportunity and to EMerald academic & coordination staff and Professor Dee Bradshaw for
helping me to be a part of this programme and this particular study.
The help I have received for the experimental work and the analysis from Bertil Plsson, Ulf
Nordstrm, Pelle Carlsson, Cecilia Lund, Martin Simonsson, Viktor Lishchuk, Abdul Mwanga,
Ufuk Okumus and Mustafa Erde Bilir is also highly appreciated. Their valuable contributions has
increased the level of this study.
Finally, I am deeply grateful to my family, especially to my parents Mustafa Kol, Leyla Erdogan
Uray, Yusuf Uray and my lovely friends either far away or next to me for their encouragement and
endless support. Without you on my side, nothing would be meaningful.

ii

Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................... vii
1.

2.

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1

Statement of the Problem.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2

State of the Art.............................................................................................................................................. 1

1.3

Objectives and Hypothesis of the Study ....................................................................................................... 2

1.4

Limitations .................................................................................................................................................... 3

Literature Survey ................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1
2.1.1

General remarks ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1.2

Flotation Rate Constant ............................................................................................................................ 4

2.1.3

Flotation Reagents .................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1.4

Entrainment .............................................................................................................................................. 8

2.1.5

Laboratory Scale Batch Flotation ............................................................................................................. 8

2.1.6

Scaling Up to Full-Scale Flotation ........................................................................................................... 9

2.2

Zinc-Lead Sulphide Flotation ..................................................................................................................... 10

2.3

Characterization Methods Related to Flotation .......................................................................................... 11

2.3.1

Grindability ............................................................................................................................................ 11

2.3.2

Particle size distribution analysis ........................................................................................................... 12

2.3.3

Chemical analysis and modal mineralogy .............................................................................................. 14

2.3.4

Mineral liberation analysis ..................................................................................................................... 15

2.4

3.

Froth Flotation Theory.................................................................................................................................. 3

Zinkgruvan AB ........................................................................................................................................... 16

2.4.1

General remarks ..................................................................................................................................... 16

2.4.2

Geology of the deposit ........................................................................................................................... 17

2.4.3

Mineralogy of the deposit....................................................................................................................... 20

2.4.4

Beneficiation of the ore .......................................................................................................................... 21

Materials and Methods ........................................................................................................................................ 25

3.1

Sampling and Sample preparation .............................................................................................................. 25

3.1.1

Bulk orebody samples ............................................................................................................................ 25

3.1.2

Internal plant stream samples ................................................................................................................. 26

3.1.3

Sample preparation for particle size distribution and grindability studies ............................................. 27

3.1.4

Sample preparation for mineralogical studies ........................................................................................ 28

3.2

Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 29

3.2.1

Mineralogy ............................................................................................................................................. 29

3.2.2

Investigation of critical plant streams..................................................................................................... 32

3.2.3

Grindability ............................................................................................................................................ 33

iii

4.

3.2.4

Flotation kinetics tests and simulation ................................................................................................... 35

3.2.5

Kinetic Modeling, Simulation and Production Forecast......................................................................... 36

3.2.6

QA / QC procedures ............................................................................................................................... 39

Results ................................................................................................................................................................. 40
4.1

Mineralogy ................................................................................................................................................. 40

4.1.1

Iron content analysis of Sphalerite ......................................................................................................... 40

4.1.2

Modal Mineralogy .................................................................................................................................. 41

4.1.3

Mineral Liberation.................................................................................................................................. 44

4.2

Current Plant Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 45

4.3

Grindability................................................................................................................................................. 48

4.3.1

Grinding Time Determination for Laboratory Studies ........................................................................... 48

4.3.2

Bond Work Index with GCT method ..................................................................................................... 50

4.4

Flotation ...................................................................................................................................................... 50

4.4.1

Bulk Rougher-Scavenger Flotation ........................................................................................................ 50

4.4.2

Evaluation of Flotation Test Results ...................................................................................................... 53

4.5

Kinetic Modeling and Simulation ............................................................................................................... 58

4.5.1

Kinetic Models ....................................................................................................................................... 58

4.5.2

Verification of Kinetic Results ............................................................................................................... 60

4.5.3

Current Plant Simulation (Reference) .................................................................................................... 61

4.5.4

Simulation & Production Forecast for New Orebody Samples .............................................................. 63

4.6

Geometallurgical Characterization of Zinkgruvan Ore Floatability ........................................................... 67

4.6.1

Recipe..................................................................................................................................................... 67

4.6.2

Result Analysis....................................................................................................................................... 68

4.7

QA / QC results .......................................................................................................................................... 69

4.7.1

Sampling ................................................................................................................................................ 69

4.7.2

Flotation test repeats............................................................................................................................... 69

5.

Discussions .......................................................................................................................................................... 70

6.

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................... 72

7.

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 74

8.

References ........................................................................................................................................................... 74

9.

Appendices .......................................................................................................................................................... 77

iv

List of Figures
Figure 1. Scope of the study; methods and objectives ................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Flotation principle illustration (acquired from http://global.britannica.com) ................................................. 4
Figure 3. Sodium Oleate Structure (acquired from (Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006) ...................................................... 6
Figure 4. MIBC dosage vs. D32 (Finch et al. 2008) ....................................................................................................... 7
Figure 5. Simple Bjerrum Diagram (Palsson 2014 ) ...................................................................................................... 8
Figure 6. Wet sieving set (on the left and, Cilas laser diffraction (on the right) equipment used for the experiments in
LTU. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 7. Laser diffraction working principle, a simplified illustration (Anon n.d.) ................................................... 14
Figure 8. A) XRF-EDS working principle illustration (Anon n.d.) B)Generalized electron-specimen interactions (Anon
n.d.) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 16
Figure 9. Location of the Zinkgruvan Deposit (acquired from Zinkgruvan Technical Report 2013) .......................... 17
Figure 10. Local geology of Zinkgruvan Mine (acquired from Zinkgruvan Technical Report 2012) ......................... 19
Figure 11. 3-D section of the Zinkgruvan Mine on 2012 (acquired from Zinkgruvan Technical Report 2013) .......... 20
Figure 12.A. Sphalerite particle with very fine galena, chalcopyrite and dyscrasite inclusions B. Fully liberated galena,
sphalerite and pyrrhotite particles ................................................................................................................................ 21
Figure 13. Bulk rougher, scavenger and cleaner flotation stages in the plant .............................................................. 23
Figure 14. Separation flotation and lead cleaning stages in the plant .......................................................................... 24
Figure 15. Crushing- screening procedure in the LTU laboratory ............................................................................... 25
Figure 16. Plant sections during site visit and sampled streams .................................................................................. 26
Figure 17 A) Struers Polishing Equipment B) Molded and engraved samples C) Carbon coater ................................ 28
Figure 18. A) Brightness & Contrast adjustments for grey levels. B) Particle and background adjustments by
MorphoCut, Smoothing and Threshold tools on Inca Mineral software. ..................................................................... 29
Figure 19. A) Selected points on a single Sph-Gn locked particle B) Spectrum 1- Galena peaks. C) Spectrum 2Sphalerite Peaks ........................................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 20. A Phase view for a single field examined SEM work. B) Single particle data view with particle components
and sizes. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 21. 1102 PSD result evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 22. Grinding times vs PSD plot for Reference.................................................................................................. 34
Figure 23. Laboratory flotation setup ........................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 24. Rougher-scavenger flotation kinetics laboratory test flowsheet ................................................................. 36
Figure 25. Three component flotation kinetics model fit for Reference galena mineral .............................................. 37
Figure 26. Open circuit batch flotation flowsheet ........................................................................................................ 38
Figure 27. Iron content frequency for sphalerite mineral in different orebody samples .............................................. 40
Figure 28. Modal Mineralogy of orebody samples ...................................................................................................... 42
Figure 29. Examples of wrong identifications on SEM for A) Franklinite in Reference B)Gahnite in Borta Bakom C)
Zincite in Mellanby ...................................................................................................................................................... 43

Figure 30. 75-106 m fraction galena liberation degree results ................................................................................... 44

Figure 31. 75-106 m fraction sphalerite liberation results ......................................................................................... 45
Figure 32. Current simple 4 section mass balance of the plant sections ...................................................................... 46
Figure 33. Bulk rougher section related stream PSDs ................................................................................................ 47
Figure 34. Separation flotation plant section feed-product stream PSDs .................................................................... 48
Figure 35. 10 minute grinding PSD results for all orebody samples vs. fresh flotation feed stream PSD (1102) ........ 49
Figure 36. Comparison of orebody samples according to their bulk flotation ultimate recovery results ..................... 51
Figure 37. Zinc grade-recovery curve for sphalerite according to rougher scavenger kinetic tests .......................... 52
Figure 38. Lead grade-recovery curve for galena according to rougher scavenger kinetic tests ............................... 52
Figure 39. Standard test vs. longer grinding time test for Sph Recoveries .................................................................. 55
Figure 40. Adjusted bulk flotation flowsheet for increase of collector dosage trial ..................................................... 56
Figure 41. Standard test vs. increased collector test results fro sph recovery .............................................................. 57
Figure 42. Standard test vs. CuSO4 test results fro sph recovery ................................................................................ 58
Figure 43. Reference sphalerite mineral kinetic models .............................................................................................. 59
Figure 44. Reference experimental and kinetic model simulation results comparison for cumulative mineral
recoveries ..................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 45.Comparison between mass balance and 2 kinetic property simulation results for feed, bulk and final conc
grade and recoveries for Reference .............................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 46. Mass balance mineral splitter simulation comparison for feed, bulk and final concentrate recovery and
grades for Reference .................................................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 47. Total solid, shalerite and galena recoveries for all orebody samples .......................................................... 64
Figure 48. Bulk concentrate contents for all orebody samples ..................................................................................... 65
Figure 49. Grade- recovery plot of zinc for all orebody samples ................................................................................. 66
Figure 50. Grade- Recovery curve of lead for orebody samples .................................................................................. 67
Figure 51. Proposed flotation experimental recipe for geometallurgical characterization of Zinkgruvan ore type
floatability .................................................................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 52. Spider Charts for sampling results .............................................................................................................. 69
Figure 53. Savsjon repeats grade-recovery variance for Zn and Pb ............................................................................. 70
Figure 54. A) Fully liberated sphalerite, B) Sphalerite- Galena Binary, C) Sphalerite- Gangue Binary ..................... 71

vi

List of Tables
Table 1. Several plant stream and product zinc-lead grade and recoveries .................................................................. 24
Table 2. Bulk samples used throughout the study ........................................................................................................ 25
Table 3. Mineral Setup- Selected, Found and Combined Minerals .............................................................................. 31
Table 4. Element Mineral Conversion for Back Calculated Mellanby Feed ................................................................ 37
Table 5. Feed sample preparation QA/QC samples ..................................................................................................... 39
Table 6.Chemical analysis sample preparation QA/QC samples ................................................................................. 39
Table 7. Flotation test composite error detection ......................................................................................................... 40
Table 8. Limiting cumulative values for iron content of sphalerite ............................................................................. 41
Table 9. Average Zn and Fe content of Sphalerite of Different Orebody samples ...................................................... 41
Table 10. Modal Mineralogy of orebody samples ....................................................................................................... 41
Table 11. Comparison of XRF and SEM analysis ....................................................................................................... 43
Table 12. Proportion of Zinc in Gahnite for Savsjon and Mellanby ............................................................................ 44
Table 13. Laser diffraction particle size passing results for plant stream samples ....................................................... 48
Table 14. 10 minutes grinding results comparison with 1102 plant feed ..................................................................... 49
Table 15. GCT test results for Different orebody samples Bond Work Index determination ...................................... 50
Table 16. Feed vs. Back calculated feed analysis results ............................................................................................. 50
Table 17. Gathered mineralogical finding for sphalerite collection problem examination .......................................... 53
Table 18. Sphalerite experimental cumulative sphalerite recovery results and different kinetic model properties ..... 58
Table 19. Kinetic Properties of Orebody samples ........................................................................................................ 60
Table 20. Kinetic Properties of Plant Samples in Bulk and Separation Flotation ........................................................ 60
Table 21. QAQC Sampling Results ............................................................................................................................. 69
Table 22. Chemical analysis results and kinetic properties for Savsjon repeats .......................................................... 70

vii

1. Introduction
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Increasing demands on the metals and minerals and decrease in the ore grade and quality has
created a need for better understanding the processing characteristics of the orebodies.
Geometallurgy is filling this need by combining geological and mineral processing information to
enable more efficient and economical beneficiation of the ore.
Zinkgruvan is a zinc-lead-silver ore deposit located in south-central Sweden. Exploitation of the
ore by underground mining and production of the concentrate in the beneficiation plant by flotation
method have been conducted by Lundin Mining since 2004.
Ongoing exploration work parallel with production on the field has ended up with the expansion
of the resources by discovery of new orebodies. These new orebodies show differences from the
one in production.
Due to the lack of knowledge and prior studies on these recently found orebodies, it is not known
if the current beneficiation setup would be suitable to treat these orebodies efficiently. In order to
make a production forecast and to be prepared for possible upcoming challenges with these
orebodies, a comprehensive study should be made for their floatability properties through
representative samples.

1.2 State of the Art

In order to make characterization of separation properties and production forecasting, three
approaches are used in geometallurgy: traditional, proxy and mineralogical approach (Lishchuk et
al. 2015).
Traditional approach uses previous experience on a particular ore types and their beneficiation
method and forecasting is made on basic statistical models. For example a recovery function is
built based on head grade (Splaine et al., 1982, Carrasco et al., 2008). This method is mainly
dependent on grade-tonnage values of ore deposits and commonly fails to predict changes which
are dependent on mineralogy of the ore. However, this approach is still widely used since it
minimizes the cost and effort needed for the forecast and it can still provide some certain accuracy
for many cases without any significant mineralogical variance.
The proxy approach, which connects the disciplines of geology and mineral processing, is
becoming an increasingly used approach for such studies. In this method, by applying small scale,
proxy tests, metallurgical behavior is tried to be measured (e.g. Niiranen & Bhm, 2012; Niiranen
& Fredriksson, 2007). These tests should be fairly cheap, fast and reproducible. However, there is
not an invented test for measuring flotation behavior by such a test so far.
The mineralogical approach requires a deep, considerably expensive and effortful study in order to
investigate effective mineralogical parameters on mineral processing. It requires both detailed
information on the mineralogy of the orebody and how different minerals behave in the processing.
As demonstrated by Lund (2013) and Lamberg et al. (2013) information needed from the ore
1

includes spatial variation in modal composition and mineral textures. The processing behavior of
different minerals and particle types can be determined by the particle tracing technique ((Lamberg
& Vianna 2007). In this study both mineralogical and proxy approaches were used.

1.3 Objectives and Hypothesis of the Study

The main objective of the study is to characterize three new orebodies through representative
samples and to make production forecast for their beneficiation efficiencies within the current plant
setup and conditions.
Many studies such as the ones by Harris (1997), Runge (1997,2001), Welsby (2010) have showed
that; by assuming the floatability property conservation through a partial or complete flotation
circuit, accurate forecasts of production performance can be simulated by conducting a series of
laboratory scale batch flotation tests.
According to this main objective and the related hypothesis, the study is planned to be conducted
in two sub-objectives which are the characterization of the orebodies through representative
samples and geometallurgical modeling of the flotation process (Figure 1).
Aim of the first sub-objective, characterization of the orebodies through samples provided by
Zinkgruvan, is to gain the required information on the mineral characteristics which is essential to
evaluate and interpret the laboratory tests. Therefore, for each orebody sample, separate studies on
mineralogy, grindability and flotation kinetics in laboratory conditions were conducted.
Additionally, by using degree of liberation and flotation kinetics test results of first sub-objective,
a secondary hypothesis is going to be tested.
For the second hypothesis, it is suggested that; there is a direct correlation with floatability
property and degree of liberation and by using this correlation, production forecasting can be
made according to liberation analysis of the Zinkgruvan orebodies.
Second sub-objective, geometallurgical modeling of the flotation performance, is the part where
the collected information through experimental work will be used to create unit operation model
for flotation and to simulate the expected performance in full circuit. Initially, a standard modeling
and simulation approach is going to be created by using an additional orebody sample which is
called Reference. Following this procedure same techniques are going to be applied on new
orebody sample results. Eventually, forecasts of the plant efficiency for new orebodies will be
derived by simulation.
Additionally, a geometallurgical flotation test method for Zinkgruvan ore type is going to be
created and proposed. Aim of this test is to provide a fast, considerably cheap and reproducible
method for characterization of upcoming new orebodies.

Figure 1. Scope of the study; methods and objectives

1.4 Limitations
Due to unexpectedly different results from bulk flotation stage of new orebody samples, and time
limitation, the kinetic modeling and forecasting could not be made for the Zn-Pb separation
flotation of new orebody samples.

2. Literature Survey
2.1 Froth Flotation Theory
2.1.1 General remarks
Flotation is a very common concentrating method in the mining industry mostly due to its
versatility and ability for beneficiation of naturally complex or low grade deposits in great
tonnages. Flotation was patented on 1906 and the application has become more and more popular
since then. Currently the method is widely used for complex sulphide ores, platinum group
elements, nickel - gold bearing sulphides, metal oxides and non-metallic ores such as phosphates
and coal (Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006).
The flotation process is very complex and far from being completely understood. It includes three
phases (solid, liquid, gas) which interacts in many internal sub processes. Basically, the solid
particles in a pulp are introduced to an environment (flotation cell) in which they are exposed to
dispersed air bubbles. The particles which attach to the bubbles are carried to the surface whereas
the others sink (Figure 2). The attachment of the particles with bubbles is mainly dependent on the
surface properties of particles, so called wettability. Particles which are wetted, (hydrophilic) tend
to stay and sink in the pulp whereas the particles which are not wetted (hydrophobic) tend to attach
to the bubbles and carried to the surface by them. The objective is to reach different surface
properties for gangue and valuable minerals in the ore in order to separate them (Palsson 2014).
3

Figure 2. Flotation principle illustration (acquired from http://global.britannica.com)

2.1.2 Flotation Rate Constant

Recovery and selectivity of a flotation process is basically dependent on the flotation rate properties
for different minerals and particles. In order to have a good separation, target mineral flotation rate
constant (k) should be significantly higher than the other minerals in the ore (Runge 2010).
The flotation rate constant of a mineral is dependent on two independent classes of parameters:
a. Unit specific parameters (i.e. impeller speed, aeration rate, cell and impeller geometry,
froth depth, bubble size)
b. Ore (i.e. feed stream) and pulp specific parameters (i.e. mineral liberation, chemical
composition of the mineral, particle size, reagent coverage)
Due to the complex nature of the flotation itself, there are many sub processes under these two
property classes. Effects of many of these sub processes are yet to be understood since the relevant
mechanism shows variance from one particle to another. Moreover, by conducting a simple circuit
survey only, the determination of all these parameters is not possible. In order to model the flotation
rate constant (k) and forecast the related recovery of the flotation process, following simplified
equation is proposed. (Eq.1) (Runge & Franzidis 2003)
=
4

(1)

where, P is the mineral floatability, Sb is the bubble surface area flux and Rf is the froth phase
recovery.
There are several different techniques introduced for the determination of the mineral floatability
(P) component of the flotation rate constant. One of the methods is the floatability distribution
method where different particle types have their specific flotation rates according to their size,
shape, degree of liberation and reagent coverage. In order to determine a particular k or its
distribution, different shapes have been assigned including gamma, rectangular or normal
distributions. However, this method is adversely criticized for having the restriction on flexibility
(Welsby et al. 2010).
Another widely accepted method is floatability component method (FCM) (Harris 1997 and
Runge 1997, 2001). According to this method, stream property i.e. floatability (P) is defined with
different floatability components (i.e. kfast-floating, kslow-floating and knon-floating). Major difference of the
approach is that in the latter particles which have the physical resemblance can be grouped together.
Additionally, it is assumed that the assigned property of a particular floatability component (i.e.
fast floating chalcopyrite) does not vary during the flotation circuit. This approach is only
applicable if the pulp chemistry is fixed, i.e. there is no severe oxidation, change in chemical regime
(reagents) or regrinding in the circuit. By making nodal analysis on the units these groups of
particles can be tracked and the mass fractions from one stream to another can be determined. The
relative equations for this approach can be seen below for batch (plug flow) and continuous
(perfectly mixed environment) operations in equations 2 and 3 respectively (Welsby et al. 2010)
= (1 exp( ))
= (

)
1 +

(2)
(3)

where, t represents the batch flotation time, Ri the batch cell recovery, mi the mass fraction, and ki
the floatability rate constant for the floatability component i.
2.1.3 Flotation Reagents
Bubble-particle attachment and consequently froth flotation of the minerals are dependent on the
hydrophobicity, i.e. wettability. Some of the minerals can be found as naturally hydrophobic
whereas most of them are found as hydrophilic. In order to create the desired pulp conditions and
the polarity between gangue and valuable mineral surface properties, several supportive reagents
are used. Reagents are commonly classified in three groups: collectors, frothers and modifiers.
i.

Collectors

Collectors are organic compounds which include a varying length of carbon chains with a polar
end. These reagents attaches to the mineral with their polar ends and the carbon chain at the other
end renders the hydrophobic surface.(Figure 3) In other words, the adsorption of the collectors by
mineral surfaces produces an insoluble compound which provides a water-repellent surface. Length
5

of the carbon chain determines the strength of the adsorption and relatively the selectivity of the
separation (Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006).

Figure 3. Sodium Oleate Structure (acquired from (Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006)

Collectors are classified as non-ionic (e.g. pine oil) and ionic, whereas ionic collectors are also
classified in two groups of anion active (e.g. xanthates) and cation active (e.g. amines) collectors.
Type of the collector used in the process, varies according to the target minerals surface properties.
Industrial dosage of the reagent can vary from ten gram per ton to several hundreds. This variance
can be due to carbon chain length, mineral assemblage or fineness of the feed size. Over dosage of
the collectors decreases the selectivity of the process by adsorbing unwanted mineral surfaces in
addition to the target minerals. On the other hand, under dosage of the collector leads to so called
collector starvation and decreases the recovery of the process (Palsson 2014).
ii.

Frothers

Similar with collectors, frother structure is also a combination of non-polar (hydrophobic) and polar
(hydrophilic) parts. This mixed polarity leads a decrease in surface tension of the pulp and allows
to produce smaller size bubbles (D32), more stable froth during froth flotation (Finch et al. 2008).
As it was introduced in Eq. 1, bubble surface area flux (Sb) is one of the parameters for flotation
rate constant determination whereas Sb, itself was defined as in the following equation 4 (Gorain
et al. 1999).
=

6
32

(4)

where Jg is volumetric air rate per unit cell cross sectional area (dependent on air flowrate and cell
dimensions) and D32 (Sauter mean bubble size) whichis dependent on frother dosage and unit
specific parameters (i.e. impeller speed, air flux)(Finch et al. 2008). Relation between a selected
frother dosage (MIBC) and D32 is introduced in the Figure 4 below.

Figure 4. MIBC dosage vs. D32 (Finch et al. 2008)

As it can be understood, low dosage of frother usage may lead to big bubble size and unstable froth
which consequently decrease the recovery. On the other hand, excessive frother usage should also
be avoided since the frothers have an influence on collectors which may causes a selectivity
problem in the process (Palsson 2014). Additionally, too stable froth creates problems in the plants
such as froth build-up on thickening stage or decrease in the further process transport efficiency
(Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006).
iii.

Modifiers

Modifiers are additional supportive reagents for efficient froth flotation and they are sub-grouped
as activators, depressants and pH regulators. Activators are generally soluble salts which are used
to alter the target mineral surface and increase the intensity of the collectors (e.g. CuSO4,). On the
contrary, depressants are used to hold down a mineral by altering its surface to hydrophilic (e.g.
Cyanide (NaCN)). Both of these reagents are simply used to increase the hydrophobicity difference
between minerals in order to increase selectivity and collector efficiency (Palsson 2014).
The pH regulators (e.g. H2SO4, NaOH) are used in order to change the alkalinity of the pulp which
is substantial for the surface property charges, adsorption of the collectors on mineral surface and
reagent concentration. Solubility of metal-collector salts are presented in so called Bjerrum
diagram as metal ion concentration versus hydroxide ion concentrate (in pH) as in Figure 5.
According to this determination, intersection of solubility products of metal hydroxide line (45
line) and solubility products for compounds which do not release hydrogen or hydroxide ions
(horizontal lines) called critical pH. In higher pH conditions of critical points metal hydroxide stays
stable and consequently mineral is hydrophilic. On the other hand, in the lower pH conditions
collector adsorption of the metal surface can be achieved which renders the mineral surface to
hydrophobic. By following this information, pH of the pulp can be adjusted to activate or depress
a certain mineral surface (Palsson 2014).
7

Figure 5. Simple Bjerrum Diagram (Palsson 2014 )

2.1.4 Entrainment
Besides true flotation via bubble attachment, particles can be carried to the concentrate by the water
phase, i.e. entrainment. Since there is no chemical selectivity for entrainment, both gangue and
valuables experience this phenomenon. Water recovery is the major affecting factor since the
particles are carried in the medium. Additionally, several studies show that, pulp density, particle
size and density, air flow rate and froth properties such as height, structure or retention time are
also affective on entrainment (Wang et al. 2015). In order to make a direct estimation of
entrainment, following equation 5 has been introduced.
=

(5)

where is the flow due to entrainment, is the classification function and is the mass to
water ratio for component i. is the water flow to concentrate (Runge 2010).
2.1.5 Laboratory Scale Batch Flotation
Laboratory batch flotation testing is fairly cheap and powerful tool for the estimation of flotation
response of an ore. It can be used for many purposes such as plant design, improvement of a current
plant setup or estimating the outcomes of variability in the plant feed as aimed in this particular
study (Runge 2010).
8

Laboratory flotation testing can be made in a number of different laboratory scale flotation cells.
In addition to flotation cell and the ore material, test requires reagents, pH, Eh and temperature
measurement equipment, notepad to keep record of the minutes of the test and a timer.
There are several laboratory flotation cells which allow adjusting the equipment parameters like
impeller speed and aeration rate. For such equipment proper adjustment should be made and for
the equipment which do not allow the adjustment, standard values for these parameters should be
measured (Runge 2010).
The tests normally begin by grinding the ore for appropriate time in order to reach the desired
mineral liberation and particle size distribution. Grinding is followed by washing down the ground
pulp material into the flotation cell. Pulp solids percentage is one of the effective parameters for
the tests. Low percentage solids tend to give better separation efficiency. However, planned or
existing plant conditions should be considered for the determination of this value. A range of 3035 % solids is commonly chosen for laboratory tests. In order to reach identical test conditions, the
pulp volume should also be adjusted by marking a fixed pulp level on the cell. Relatively with the
pulp level, froth thickness during the procedure can also be fixed (Runge 2010).
After washing the pulp into the flotation cell and adjusting the pulp level, the impeller is turned on
and the test continues by the conditioning stage. Required reagents in proper dosages are added.
Condition stage is followed by flotation stage. The aeration is turned on and built froth is scraped
on top of the cell into a bowl. A typical test for the determination of the flotation rate constants is
to collect several concentrate in fixed time periods. Collected concentrates are weighed as wet and
also as dry after filtering and drying. Concentrates and tail are prepared for chemical analysis. This
includes splitting and milling. After the chemical analysis of each sample is received, mass balance,
individual recoveries, selectivity information and more can be gathered and presented. Finally
kinetic constants are determined by model fitting (Runge 2010).
2.1.6 Scaling Up to Full-Scale Flotation
Since the flotation constant is not only dependent on the pulp properties but also to the unit
parameters as mentioned before; following the determination of floatability components parameter
values for minerals with laboratory batch flotation tests, a correction should be made for full scale
by the consideration of Sb and Rf parameters. This correction is called scale up factor (C) which
represents the difference in unit parameter kinetics of laboratory and full scale flotation procedure.
Generally the scale up factor is determined by conducting hot flotation which indicates the
critical stream collection from the plant followed with immediate laboratory scale batch flotation
tests. However, several studies with similar objective also has been successfully made without
conducting a circuit survey, but only with series of laboratory batch studies followed by the
determination of scale up factor by the estimation on experience or existing plant conditions. The
scale-up factor is introduced in the equation 6 below (Runge et al. 1997).
=

(6)

2.2 Zinc-Lead Sulphide Flotation

Due to the similarity in their geological and geochemical properties zinc and lead minerals
normally are found together in the earth crust (Evans 1987). The most common mineral sources of
zinc and lead are sphalerite ((Zn, Fe) S) and galena (PbS) respectively. These minerals are
frequently associated with pyrite (FeS2). Trace minerals of silver and cadmium are typical, as well.
In processing of Zn and Pb ores flotation is the most widely used method (Plsson, 2013). In the
case of vein deposits dense media separation is sometimes used as a pre-treatment method.
Flotation of zinc-lead sulphide minerals is commonly made in two different ways. The most
common way is a two stages selective flotation by floating galena and depressing zinc and iron
minerals in the first stage followed by the sphalerite flotation in the second stage. If copper minerals
are present, as in Cu-Zn-Pb ores, they float with galena. This procedure requires very fine grinding
since additionally to the liberation of zinc and lead minerals from gangue, the liberation of the leadzinc minerals from each other is also needed from the first stage of flotation.
The other common way of lead zinc flotation is bulk flotation of galena and sphalerite followed by
a separation flotation by floating galena and depressing sphalerite. This method is most suitable in
the cases of autogenous grinding and if the iron sulphide content is considerably low in the ore
(Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006). There are several advantages of this option comparing two stage
selective flotation such as having less complexity on flowsheet of the plant. Another significant
advantage is decreasing energy consumption for size reduction stages, since coarser sizes are
acceptable for the stage one (bulk flotation) where the throughput is at the highest. However, it is
indicated that (Wills 2006), in most cases it is difficult to depress initially activated iron and zinc
minerals for the separation stage since these surfaces are covered by the collectors during bulk
flotation and this procedure may significantly increase the usage of depressing reagents. Another
disadvantage of the process is not having a tailings stream in the separation phase of the flotation.
Therefore, all the unwanted minerals which could not be removed during the bulk flotation stage
either go to zinc or lead concentrates (Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006)(Palsson 2013).
Xanthates, which are classified in ionizing-anionic-sulfhydryl collector group, are commonly used
as collectors for zinc-lead flotation. Longer hydrocarbon chain xanthates such as amyl or hexyl
xanthate provides higher stability for the bubble-particle attachment but reduces the selectivity of
the process (Palsson 2014). Solubility of the heavy metal-xanthates like lead xanthate is very low.
Therefore, ethyl xanthate is generally appropriate for the selective flotation of galena in many
cases. On the other hand, solubility of zinc and iron xanthates are relatively higher; therefore, in
most cases an efficient flotation requires either the activation of sphalerite by heavy metal ions, or
longer chain xanthates such as isopropyl or amyl xanthate. Relatively, floatability of sphalerite is
also directly affected by the presence of heavy metal ions in the pulp and the iron content of the
mineral (Wills & Nappier-Munn 2006).
Heavy metal ion presence (e.g. Cu2+, Pb2+, Ag1+) in the pulp results with an exchange reaction
between these ions and Zn due to favorable thermodynamics. This exchange reaction activates the
mineral surface. In other words, it provides less soluble, consequently, more stable metal-xanthate
adsorption for sphalerite collection (Eq. 7) (Laskowski et al. 1997).
10

2+
()

+ () = () +

2+
()

[2+ ]
=
= 1011
[2+ ]

(7)

Another important aspect to mention is the effect of iron content in sphalerite which may cause an
activation inefficiency problem for the mineral. Normally, already existing heavy metal ions in the
pulp or in the cases of copper activation, the substitution of zinc and heavy metal salts occurs.
However, studies show that the increase of iron content in sphalerite limits this reaction and
consequently increases the solubility of metal xanthates (Boulton et al. 2005).
In both cases, i.e. selective and bulk flotation option, sphalerite needs to be depressed at one stage
while galena is floated. For this purpose, there are several zinc depressants available. Cyanide is
very commonly used and highly selective depressant. It not only depresses zinc sulphide, but also
iron sulphides and possibly present copper sulphides. However, it has two major disadvantages of
being very toxic and expensive. Therefore, other reagents are getting more and more common
including zinc sulphate (ZnSO4) and sodium bisulphite (NaHSO3) as sphalerite depressant (Wills
& Nappier-Munn 2006).
Zinc-lead sulphide deposits usually contains iron sulphides (e.g. pyrite, pyrrhotite (Fe(1-x)S)).
Presence of these minerals may cause problem with especially sphalerite floatation since the
adsorption and solubility levels of zinc and iron xanthates are very similar. Therefore, in two stage
separation, galena is floated first while the other sulphides are depressed. After this process, for the
separation of iron and zinc sulphides by depressing iron, there are also several other methods which
are applied. The most common method is to increase the conditioning pH to highly alkaline level.
This causes formation of a ferric hydroxide layer on the iron surface which prevents the iron surface
from getting activated by exchange reaction of copper or other heavy metal ions (Boulton et al.
2001).

2.3 Characterization Methods Related to Flotation

There are a number of reasons affecting flotation performance such as variations in head grade,
particle size distribution, mineral grain size, mineral assemblage and liberation degree of the feed
material. Traditionally, in full-scale application, such performance problems are tried to be solved
by regulating reagent dosage, changing the flotation residence times by changing throughput or
making several adjustment on the operating parameters of flotation cells. On the other hand,
mineralogical studies are mostly needed to get deeper understanding on reasons for variability and
poor performance. There are number of tools in order to characterize these properties of the ore
and to detect the source of variance in flotation performance (Lamberg & Rosenkranz 2014).
2.3.1 Grindability
There are several introduced methods for the characterization of competence or comminution
properties of a particular ore type. The most relevant of them are the ones characterizing the final
size reduction, i.e. grindability tests. These methods have been specified for varying mill types and
characterization of the material is made according to the selected mill type. Bond ball mill test is
11

used for ball mills, Bond rod mill test for rod mills, JK drop weight test for AG and SAG
mills)(Bailey et al. 2009).
Bond ball mill test is a widely used grindability determination method for industrial ball mills. It
generally requires over 15 kg representative sample and includes several cycles of grinding and
sieving to simulate the circulation load in the industrial scale (Ahmadi & Shahsavari 2009). On the
other hand, a recent study by Mwanga (2014) shows success on determination of BWI by a
geometallurgical comminution test (GCT). According to this method, by applying a smaller set of
grinding experiments using a small scale laboratory ball mill and application of introduced
calibration factors on BWI equation, grindability characterization can be made. Additionally, for
the application of the tests only around 200 grams (<-3.35 mm) sample is needed. Introduced
calibrated equation can be seen in the equation 8 below (Mwanga 2014).

1 2 3 4 10 (

1
1

)
80 80

(8)

where,
BWI = Estimated Bond Work Index
E = measured specific energy in the small mill after efficiency calibration (kwh/ton)
P80= Product d80 (m)
F80 = Feed d80 (m)
k = 1.63 (scale factor for Bond to small all mill)
Ef1 = 1.3 (correction factor for dry grinding)
Ef2 = 1.842 (Correction factor for efficient diameter
Ef3 = 0.835 (Ball mill efficient factor)
Ef4 = 0.95 (Efficient factor of fineness

2.3.2 Particle size distribution analysis

One possible source for the performance variance in flotation related with grindability is the
particle size distribution (PSD) of the feed. Flotation is a separation technique which is made
mostly within fine (<150 m) particle sizes. For the cases with very fine grain mineral
beneficiation, considering the liberation of the target mineral, the grind size is often even finer. The
flotation kinetics normally reaches highest values in the particle size range of 20 to 100 microns.
Above this size, the mass of particle and decrease in liberation makes kinetics slower. In finer
particle sizes particles tend to follow water streamlines and decrease in collision efficiency lowers
flotation kinetics. Therefore, having a variance on the feed PSD can be a reason which directly
effects the flotation performance. Among many existing techniques for PSD analysis, sieving and
laser diffraction are two most commonly used ones (Figure 6).

12

Figure 6. Wet sieving set (on the left and, Cilas laser diffraction (on the right) equipment used for the experiments in LTU.

i.

Sieving

Sieving is the most common method for particle size analysis. It is a very useful technique
considering its very straight forward application and relatively low costs. Sieving can be done at
dry or wet conditions and by wet screening down to 10 m particle size can be analyzed. Basically
for sieving, a set of screens in ratio of 2 for aperture sizes is constructed and the material is fed
starting from the coarsest mesh size sieve to the finest one. At the end of the procedure, retained
materials for each sieve are weighed and recorded.
There are several ways to present the collected information from sieving. Most commonly, the
results are constructed as cumulative passing or cumulative retained amounts against screen
aperture sizes in a linear-log diagram in order to derive a certain proportion of undersize material
such as 80% passing size (d80). However, this method does not provide an overall particle size
distribution. For that purpose, often the full distribution is described as a function and one of such
is Rosin-Rammler (RR) equation (Rosin and Rammler, 1934). The equation gives full size
distribution and commonly a good fit between measured and model fitted distribution can be
received (Wills & Napier-Munn 2005). General expression of RR distribution function can be seen
in equation 9 below (Macas-Garca et al. 2004)
ln{ [1 ()]} =

(9)

where, () is the distribution function with is the particle size (mm), is the mean particle size
(mm) and m is a constant represents the spread of particles.
i.

Laser Diffraction

Laser diffraction is a common method for particle size analysis and it is useful especially for very
fine particle sizes (<20 m). In this method, a small amount of the material (down to 0.2 grams
depending on particle size) is sampled and silted up with distilled water. The main principle is to
13

subject the dispersed particles to the laser beam and measure the angular variation intensity of the
scattered light for each particle. For modeling of the PSD of a particular sample Mie theory or
Fraunhofer approximation can be used. Mie theory is the most reliable method for this purpose;
however it requires the knowledge on refractive index of the particles which defines how a
material refracts light (Anon n.d.) Therefore, for the cases with an unknown index, Fraunhofer
approximation is used for fast and less complex size property evaluations on a particular material.
A simplified illustration of the laser diffraction equipment working principle can be seen in Figure
7. (Anon n.d.)

Figure 7. Laser diffraction working principle, a simplified illustration (Anon n.d.)

2.3.3 Chemical analysis and modal mineralogy

Chemical analysis of all beneficiation products are needed in order to determine the process
efficiency. Chemical analysis procedure can be explained in two stages. First, the sample must be
prepared for the analysis. This includes pulverizing by further milling into fine particles, less than
50 microns. If the analysis is to be done from solution solid sample must be dissolved. When aiming
for total dissolution then a mixture of HF and HNO3 is commonly used. Another option is to fuse
samples to form a glass which is often easier to dissolve. From solution the analysis can be done
by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) or inductively coupled plasma (ICP). Analysis from
powder briquette or glass flux can be done with X-Ray fluorescence (XRF).
XRF technology provides a non-destructive, simultaneous elemental analysis on solid samples,
briquettes or glass fluxes. Its working principle is based on the electronic structure of the atom,
which radiates secondary X-Rays when irradiated with X-Rays which is called fluorescence
radiation. Every element has a specific fluorescence radiation. Therefore, depending on the
wavelength and energy of the fluorescence, element can be identified. (Figure 8) Additionally, by
using the intensity of each fluorescence radiation, concentrations of the element can be calculated
(Wobrauschek 2007).

14

As beneficiation methods are applied in order to separate valuable minerals from gangue minerals,
it is essential to determine the modal mineralogy of samples. Basically, three techniques can be
used: electron microscope based automated mineralogy (e.g. Burrows et al., 2007; Fandrich et al.,
2007), quantitative X-ray diffraction (Gonzalez et al. 2003; Parian & Lamberg 2013) or elementto-mineral conversion ((Whiten 2007; Lund et al. 2013). In this study element-to-mineral
conversion was used. This conversion can be represented by the following equation (Eq. 10).
=

(10)

where, A is the matrix of a particular minerals chemical composition which can be determined
by microprobe analysis or by using mostly occurring mineral data, x represents the unknown
vector of mineral composition in the sample, and b is the element weights which has been
determined by one of the previously mentioned analyses (Whiten 2007). In the case of
overdetermined (i.e. more elements than minerals) or non-negative least squares solution then
solution for x is searched by minimizing the residual (R) as described in Eq. 11 (Lund 2013).
= [ ]

(11)

2.3.4 Mineral liberation analysis

Flotation performance can be directly affected by variance in mineral liberation between different
orebodies due to the variance between mineral grain sizes and mineral association. Degree of
liberation should be determined for the minerals of interest. Optical or scanning electron
microscopy are the most common methods for liberation analysis. Modern equipment such as
MLA, QEMSCAN, and INCA Mineral can supply degree of liberation information in an automated
way, among their other services (Fandrich et al. 2007; Sutherland & Gottlieb 1991; Liipo et al.
2012). By using these equipment, proportion of the liberated minerals against non-liberated can be
obtained after required data processing with relevant software such as MLA Datview, QemScan
iDiscovrer and HSC Chemistry (Lamberg & Rosenkranz 2014).
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) technique can produce down to nanometer particle
information and the data production is done by the combination of several detectors. Back scattered
electrons (BSE) is used for identifying particles from the background (resin) and of preliminary
classify minerals into different gray levels. For defined gray levels energy dispersive spectrometer
(EDS) is used to measure the chemical composition of phases (Figure 8)

15

Figure 8. A) XRF-EDS working principle illustration (Anon n.d.) B)Generalized electron-specimen interactions (Anon n.d.)

Analysis on such equipment can be made on drill-cores, slags or ground sample i.e. particulate
materials as in this study. For the analysis of particulate material, approximately 2-3 grams of
sample is needed to be prepared by a certain procedure. These samples can also be used for optical
microscopy studies. In particulate materials the analysis is commonly made on size fractions since
in bulk samples material can be classified by segregation or due to large variation in the particle
size, single magnification to be selected is a compromise and wont give good result either in coarse
or fine particle sizes.

2.4 Zinkgruvan AB
2.4.1 General remarks
Large scale mining in the Zinkgruvan zinc-lead-silver deposit was started on 1857 and has
continued since then. Lundin Mining Corporation has owned the production rights of the deposit
since 2004. The mine site is located in south-central Sweden (Figure 9) and includes an
underground mine, processing plant, infrastructure and tailings disposal. Recently, an enclosed
separate copper rich orebody was found and is now beneficiated by a separate line in the process
plant (Malmstrm et al. 2009).
Three different underground mining methods are utilized in the mine which are; transverse bench
and fill, double sub level mining and a modified Avoca mining method. These mining methods
were selected after the increased size of mined out areas. Due to the stability problems in the mine,
mining methods were changed and also paste backfill system was installed to the process plant
(Owen & Meyer 2013).
Currently mill throughput is around 1.2 million ton per year with a production of around 82 kt zinc,
30 kt lead and 4 kt copper. In addition to the two existing transportation shafts to the main levels
of 800 and 950 m, a ramp from the surface to 350 m depth was also built in 2010 in order to ease
the transportation of the equipment. While transportation of the lead and zinc concentrates are made
by trucks around 100 km away to the nearest port of Otterbacken where it is shipped to several
different smelters in Europe (Owen & Meyer 2013).

16

Figure 9. Location of the Zinkgruvan Deposit (acquired from Zinkgruvan Technical Report 2013)

2.4.2 Geology of the deposit

i.

Local & Deposit Geology

Proterozoic age Bergslagen greenstone belt (1.90 to 1.88 Ga) consists of a number of iron and base
metal ore deposits and it is also the source of the mineralization in Zinkgruvan which is located at
the south west corner of the belt. The supracrustal rock consists of three groups: metavolcanic
group, metavolcano-sedimentary group which hosts most of the Zn-Pb-Ag mineralization and
metasedimentary group from lower to higher stratigraphic position. Up to 10 km thick felsic
metavolcanic successions dominates these supracrustal rocks (Owen & Meyer 2013).
17

During the Svecofennian orogeny in the Bergslagen greestone belt, firstly the intrusion into the
mentioned supracrustal rocks occurred as the I-type (igneous) granitoids which was followed by
further intrusion of S-type (sedimentary) plutons and dikes. Lastly, a large volume granitic stock
was intruded after orogeny causing a local folding on the area (1.73 Ga) (Hedstrom et al. 1989).
Relatively incompetent supracrustal rocks were folded in repeated deformation during the orogeny.
Large scale block movements which are caused by brittle fracturing of NNE fault systems such as
Knalla fault deformed and separated the ore zones. Hundreds of meter movement along these 1.53
Ga years old fault systems was occurred (Malmstrm et al. 2009). Local geology map of
Zinkgruvan is shown in Figure 10 (Owen & Meyer 2013).
Due to tectonics and intrusions, stratigraphy was overturned and the stratigraphic footwall has
become structural hanging wall. Below, the lithology of the deposit was presented starting from
the stratigraphic footwall (oldest age) to the stratigraphic hanging wall (youngest age) (Owen &
Meyer 2013)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

Felsic metatuffite with occasional iron formation beds.

Marble
Zn, Pb massive sulphide
Calc-silicate bedded metatuffite
Marble
Felsic metatuffite with dissemination pyrrhotite mineralization
Argilic metasediment

Massive orebodies of lead and zinc sulphide are in well banded stratiform layers of 5 to 25 meter
thickness. The whole ore deposit is around 5 km long with down to 1.5 km depth. Due to the
previously mentioned structural activity which resulted with the movement of the blocks along the
Knalla fault, the deposit is divided into two domains which are called Nygruvan and Knallagruvan.
Two parallel horizons separated by 3 to 8 meter gneissic metatuffite are formed in Nygruvan. On
the other hand, in the Knalla part of the deposit, which contains all the new type of ores in the
interest of the study additionally with so called Burkland and Cecilia, there are up to four parallel
horizons but in narrower widths compared to Nygruvan.

18

Figure 10. Local geology of Zinkgruvan Mine (acquired from Zinkgruvan Technical Report 2012)

ii.

Mineral resources & reserves

The resource estimation done in 2012 is contained in the National Instrument 43-101 technical
report of 2013. The study was made by Lundin Mining and audited by WAI. Orebody modeling
was mainly made using 3D block modeling except some minor orebodies and early stage resource
evaluations. By the time the feasibility study was prepared, two of the new orebodies of this
thesis (Mellanby and Savsjon) were evaluated. Therefore, the resource estimation method for these
orebodies was polygonal method whereas for the third new orebody of the study (Borta Bakom)
the method used was block modeling.
Cut-off grade for the mineralization was 3.8 % Zn for zinc-lead-silver orebodies and 1% Cu for
copper orebodies. Block modeling was constructed with 10m-5m-10m blocks with the additional
sub-blocking preference of 1/16. Mostly, ordinary kriging was used for the grade estimation
processes except several orebodies including Borta Bakom which show poor structured continuity.
A simplified illustration of 3-D section of the mine from 2012 can be seen in Figure 11(Owen &
Meyer 2013).According to the results of the estimation on 2012 total resources are 14.5 Mt and 6
19

Mt for zinc-lead-silver and copper orebodies respectively. Zinc-lead-silver and copper total
reserves were also estimated as 10 Mt at 9.0% Zn, 4.0 % Pb and 86 ppm Ag; and 4Mt at 2.2% Cu
and 32 ppm Ag, respectively.

Figure 11. 3-D section of the Zinkgruvan Mine on 2012 (acquired from Zinkgruvan Technical Report 2013)

2.4.3 Mineralogy of the deposit

Sphalerite and galena are the major sulphide minerals in the Zinkgruvan ore type. Another
economical asset of the deposit is silver which is found mostly in native form or as fine grained
dyscrasite (Ag3Sb) (Figure 12) inclusions in galena and sphalerite. Other minor and trace sulphide
minerals found in the ore are; chalcopyrite (CuFeS2) (< 0.2 %) pyrrhotite, pyrite and arsenopyrite
(FeAsS) (Hedstrom et al. 1989).
According to the previous process mineralogy study the chemical compositions of sphalerite is on
average of 60% Zn 5% Fe with 300 ppm cobalt and 100 ppm silver. Galena contains on average
86 % lead with 650 ppm silver and 300 ppm selenium. Cobalt is present in the ore as cobaltite
(CoAsS) (Liipo & Lamberg 2005). In the plant feed in 2005 the liberation degree of sphalerite in
the feed for the bulk flotation was at a very good level of up to 90 % whereas galena had lower (80
%) liberation especially in coarse particle sizes (>150 microns) where it was around 50 % (Liipo
& Lamberg 2005).

20

Figure 12.A. Sphalerite particle with very fine galena, chalcopyrite and dyscrasite inclusions B. Fully liberated galena,
sphalerite and pyrrhotite particles

The major gangue minerals in the deposit are quartz (SiO2), orthoclase (k-feldspar, KAlSi3O8) and
biotite (K(Mg,Fe2+)3AlSi3O10(OH,F)2). According to a recent study (Liipo, 2011) on its mode of
b. b
occurrence; silica is mainly carried by k-feldspar (52 %) and quartz (30 %). Despite the
considerably good degree of liberation conditions, half of the silicate presence in the concentrates
B
was claimed to be due to insufficient liberation whereas the other half was considered to be
liberated and due to entrainment (Liipo 2011).
2.4.4 Beneficiation of the ore

b.

There are two separate circuits for zinc-lead-silver and copper ore in Zinkgruvan process plant.
During the plant visit and sampling collection, due to the lack of copper ore, copper comminution
circuit was used for additional lead-zinc-silver ore production whereas the flotation circuit for
copper ore was shut down. However, this temporary situation was already changed back to normal
application right after the plant visit. Therefore, since the copper ore and the beneficiation circuit
is out of scope of the study, this circuit will not be introduced in detail in this study.
i.

Underground primary crushing and hoisting

Drilled and blasted ore and waste material is primarily crushed at underground to -250 mm and
hoisted to the surface with 20 tons skips. Capacity of this primary crusher is approximately 300
tons per hour.
Crushed ore material is screened using a double deck screen and three sizes are generated. Crusher
fines (-15 mm) and lump material for autogenous grinding media (+ 90 mm) are directly sent to
AG mill, with the ratio of 70 % to 30 %, respectively. Intermediate size fraction is partly sent to
cone crusher and recirculated back to the double deck screen. This stream is instantaneously
adjustable and the amount sent to cone crusher can be changed according to the mill conditions at
the time.
ii.

Grinding

21

The grinding circuit in Zinkgruvan plant starts with 6.5 meter to 8.0 meter size AG mill with two
1600kW drivers for the zinc-lead-silver ore. The AG mill is run in a closed circuit with 250 mm
hydrocylones and the target cyclone overflow d80 is 110 to 120 m.
Except the AG mill grinding circuit there are additionally two intermediate regrinding mills. First
one is for the regrinding of scavenger concentrates and cleaner tailings and it is a 3.5 meter to 3.8
meter size ball mill with 400 kW motor. Target grinding size (d80) of this mill is around 60 m.
(Gustafsson pers. comm. 2015)
Secondary intermediate regrinding mill is for the cyclone of the Pb-Zn separation circuit and it is
a 2.4 meter to 3.6 meter size ball mill with 400 kW motor. Target grinding size (d80) of this mill is
approximately 30 m (Anon 2010).
iii.

Froth Flotation

In the plant, beneficiation of the zinc-lead-silver ore is made by four stage flotation. In stage one,
bulk rougher-scavenger flotation is performed by two banks of Outotec OK 38 (SR1-2) and
followed by six Metso RCS 40 m3 (SR3-8) flotation cells. Before this stage pH of the slurry is
adjusted to 8.0 8.20 by using sulfuric acid (H2SO4). As a collector, Sodium Iso-Propyl Xanthate
(SIPX) (25g/t) and as a frother, NasFroth (48 g/t) is used. Previously, for sphalerite activation
purposes, copper sulphate (CuSO4) was also used. However, it is not used in the circuit anymore
since sphalerite in the process is already activated into some extent possibly due to autogenous
grinding application and low iron content of the ore as it was suggested by Wills (2006). In other
words, generation of heavy metal ions by autogenous grinding and pulp chemistry conditions which
is also a results of low iron content of the ore believed to be leading a high recovery sphalerite
flotation without the usage of activator.
First two stages of plant flotation is illustrated in Figure 13. In the rougher-scavenger flotation the
first four cells are used as rougher flotation units and the concentrate is sent to the cleaning stage,
whereas the other four cells are used as scavengers and the concentrate is sent to first regrinding
unit and then back to the rougher flotation. Scavenger tail is sent to the tailings pond or the paste
plant.
In stage two, cleaning of the bulk concentrate is made in four stages with six Metso RCS 15 m3
flotation cells and Outotec OK 16 m3 flotation cells (SF1-8). Again the addition of collector and
frother is made during the cleaning stages. The cleaned bulk concentrate is sent to the next stage
whereas the tail of the first cleaning stage is combined with scavenger concentrate and sent first to
regrinding and then back to rougher flotation. Cleaner tails from each stage is sent in the previous
stages.

22

Figure 13. Bulk rougher, scavenger and cleaner flotation stages in the plant

Separation flotation and lead cleaning flotation circuits are illustrated in Figure 14. Third stage in
the flotation circuit is the separation of bulk concentrate to galena and sphalerite concentrates using
six Metso RCS 15 m3 flotation cells (PR1-6). By using Sodium Bisulfite (NaHSO3) as zinc
depressant (320 g /t), and by adding more collector and frother, the lead is floated whereas the zinc
is collected as tailing and directly sent to dewatering as final concentrate.
Floated lead concentrate is lastly sent to the fourth and last stage of the flotation circuit which is
lead cleaning. This stage includes three cleaning steps and is conducted by four Metso RCS 15m 3
flotation cells, followed by a JELE cell (PF1-4, JELE). Final concentrate of this circuit is sent to
dewatering and then taken as final lead concentrate whereas the cleaner tails are sent back to the
previous cleaning step.

23

Figure 14. Separation flotation and lead cleaning stages in the plant

A Courier on-line analysis system is used to monitor several streams. In addition laboratory
analysis is used for daily samples collected by the staff. In Table 1 below, for the sampling period
(Jan 29th 11.30-14.00) feed, concentrate and tailings tonnages and grades with relative recoveries
(simple flowsheet solid mass balance) are given. Assays are from the Courier on-line analyzer.
Table 1. Several plant stream and product zinc-lead grade and recoveries

Stream

Solid Flow ( t/h)

Solid Flow (%)

Zn %

Pb %

Zn Rec%

Pb Rec%

Feed

145.00

100.00

7.43

3.38

100.00

100.00

Bulk Concentrate

23.24

16.02

42.96

19.36

92.71

91.86

Zinc Concentrate

17.58

12.12

55.18

2.67

90.08

9.57

Lead Concentrate

5.66

3.90

5.01

71.23

2.63

82.30

121.76

83.98

0.64

0.33

7.29

8.14

Tailings

iv.

Dewatering & Product Handling

The final lead concentrate is initially sent to a 7 m diameter thickener and then pressure filtered
before it is sent to lead stockpile with approximately, 6 % moisture content. The final zinc
concentrate on the other hand is initially sent to a 15 m diameter thickener and followed by pressure
filter and stockpiled with 9-10 % moisture content.
A part of the tailings is sent to tailings pond and the rest to the paste fill plant where it is dewatered
by a 10.5 m diameter thickener followed by disc filter. Later, by cement addition (2-4%) to the
dewatered material, the paste is pumped back to underground (Owen & Meyer 2013).
24

3. Materials and Methods

3.1 Sampling and Sample preparation
3.1.1 Bulk orebody samples
During the study, reference sample, which was collected from the current AG mill feed (fine
crushed (<15 mm) material) and three new orebody grab samples (<10cm) from the development
galleries of Zinkgruvan were used.
In the Table 2 below, bulk ore sample information can be seen. New orebody samples were
collected by the plant geologist Mr. Pelle Carlsson and the reference ore sample was collected by
the plant mill superintendent Mr. Anders Gustafsson in January 2015.
Table 2. Bulk samples used throughout the study
Sample

Total Amount (Apx.) (kg)

Size

Reference(Burkland-Nygruvan blend)

50.00

-15 mm

Savsjon* (Knallagruvan)

80.00

-10 cm

Mellanby (Knallagruvan)

60.00

-10 cm

Borta Bakom (Knallagruvan)

60.00

-10 cm

* Savsjon orebody is classified in three parts in resource estimation. Orebody sample received for the study represents only the part
called Savjon West.

From all the orebody samples a small portion (approx. 1.5 kg) was reserved as back up sample and
for other possible studies. The rest of the material was crushed and necessary amount for the
experiments of this study was split into 1 kg bags. Laboratory scale jaw crusher wth adjusted
closed site setting (CSS) of approximately 5mm was used for size reduction of the material.
Crushing was made within close circuit of 3.35 mm screen. Crushing-screening procedure was
repeated until majority of the sample (approx. 99%) size were reduced below 3.35 (Figure 15).
Following this procedure, a splitter unit was used in order to create 1 kg representative samples for
each orebody. All the mentioned solid samples can be seen in Appendix 1.

Figure 15. Crushing- screening procedure in the LTU laboratory

25

3.1.2 Internal plant stream samples

Additionally to the bulk samples introduced previously, several plant stream samples were also
collected during plant visit. The experiments and analysis on these samples were used to gain
further information on plant mass balance, particle size distributions separation conditions, and
sectional flotation kinetics. Additionally, in order to plan a suitable laboratory procedure which
would represent the industrial scale beneficiation in Zinkgruvan process, these samples were
necessary to investigate. Therefore, the plant visit was made in order to get familiar with the whole
processing procedure, perform sampling throughout the plant and consequently to gain required
knowledge for the for the further laboratory studies.
In Figure 16 below, illustrated flowsheet represents the plant conditions on the sampling date of
29.01.2015. The sampled streams are illustrated in red color. In order to increase zinc-lead-silver
throughput, during the copper ore unavailability, standard AG mill of the circuit was backed up
with the ball mill circuit which is normally used for grinding of the copper ore. Since this method
in the plant is a temporary one, copper ball mill product was not studied further.

Figure 16. Plant sections during site visit and sampled streams

Considering scope of the thesis, four stage flotation circuit was decided to be examined and
simulated individually. As the initial plan, four main units which are; bulk rougher-scavenger
flotation (SR1-8), bulk cleaner flotation (SF1-8) separation flotation (PR1-6) and lead cleaning
flotation (PF1-4 + JELE) (Figure 16) were planned to be examined individually and the relative
streams were sampled in order to gain knowledge on the internal feed-product properties. These
four main streams are introduced below with corresponding names.
1 AGM cyclone O/F- Rougher-Scavenger flotation feed (P-1101, 1102)
26

2 Rougher Conc. - Bulk cleaning stage flotation feed (P-2101, 2102)

3 Bulk Concentrate - Pb-Zn separation stage flotation feed (P-3101, 3102)
4 Separation Conc. - Pb Cleaning stage flotation feed (P-4101, 4102)
Additional to these four main sampling points which represents the feed of each flotation stage,
three more streams were sampled in order to gain more knowledge about the whole circuit stream
characteristics.
5.2 Ground middlings - Intermediate grinding product for bulk scavenger and cleaner
middlings product (P-5201, 5202)
7 Zinc Concentrate - Pb-Zn separation flotation circuit sink (P-7101)
8 Lead Concentrate - Pb cleaning circuit float (P-8101)
The whole sampling was done during one day, 29th of January between 11:30 and 14:00. Shortest
time possible was tried to be used to reduce the variance in the plant feed. Before and after the
sampling procedure, control room was visited and it was confirmed that there was no extreme
situations in the plant during the sampling procedure. Additionally, the courier and online signal
system data were obtained later on for the sampling period, in order to have extra information such
as chemical composition of tailings stream and make mass balancing and data reconciliation for
collected samples.
For each selected stream in the plant, two identical samples in different masses were collected. One
of the samples was kept as slurry, immediately used for the determination of several properties
such as pulp density, Eh and pH of streams. On the other hand, duplicates of these samples were
dried and all together shipped to Lule University of Technology mineral processing laboratory for
further studies. All mentioned plant samples can be seen in the Appendix 1. with corresponding
uses.
3.1.3 Sample preparation for particle size distribution and grindability studies
For the particle size analysis sieving and laser diffraction methods were used throughout the study.
Dry sieving for crushed orebody samples and wet sieving for laboratory ground and plant stream
samples were used.
For each new orebody and bulk reference sample, after crushing - splitting procedure, out of 1 kg
bags, 230-250 g samples were further split and used for dry sieving. For plant stream samples and
ground orebody samples, 90- 120 g samples were split and used for wet sieving due to the very
fine fraction present.
Additional samples for Geometallurgical Comminution Test (GCT, (Mwanga et al. 2014) were
also prepared as 215 - 220 g split samples (<3.35 mm). One sample representing each orebody,
(including Reference) in total, 4 samples were prepared for these studies.
Laser diffraction sizing technique was additionally used with much smaller amounts of material
comparing with sieving procedures. Depending on the estimated size distribution of each sample
27

and considering the desired concentration parameter of 100 to 130 on Cilas software, 0.30 to 0.50
g samples were split and used for the analysis.
3.1.4 Sample preparation for mineralogical studies
Mineralogical studies on automated mineralogy with IncaMineral and optical microscopy requires
specifically prepared polished sections. In order to prepare these samples, initially, the material of
interest was split to 2 to 3 grams. This material was then molded with epoxy and let to harden for
48 hours. After the hardening, the samples were subjected into several stages of grinding and
polishing procedure using Struers semi-automated polishing equipment shown in Figure 17.
Following the polishing procedure, the samples became suitable for optical microscopy studies.
However, for the SEM-EDS procedures on Inca Mineral, these samples were additionally carbon
coated. Molded and engraved samples, and carbon coating equipment can also be seen in Figure
17 below.

Figure 17 A) Struers Polishing Equipment B) Molded and engraved samples C) Carbon coater

According to the initial mineralogical study plan, following five size fractions from each four
orebody samples were decided to be prepared: 20-38 m, 38-53 m, 53-75 m, 75-106 m and
106-150 m. These samples were split and prepared from 10 minute laboratory rod mill grinding
28

product of wet sieved fractions. In total twenty (20) samples were prepared for this part of the
study. All the mineralogical study samples can be seen in Appendix 1.

3.2 Methods
Based on objectives of the study shown in Figure 1, methodologies described in following six sub
chapters.
3.2.1 Mineralogy
i.

Experimental

For the mineralogical study of the feed samples 10 minute ground and sieved samples for each
orebody (R-T2; M-T2; S-T2; BB-T2) were used. From the sieved and reserved product, five
different size fractions for each sample were prepared with 2 to 3 gram material. The samples were
initially examined on optical microscopy for mineral identification and preliminary estimate on
mineral liberation and association.
Following the optical microscopy study, samples were carbon coated and analyzed by SEM based
automated mineralogy. In this Zeiss Merlin scanning electron microscope equipped with Oxford
EDS detector and INCAMineral software at Lule University of Technology was used.
During each SEM run 4 samples were examined. Prior to each run, experimental setup was made
on INCAMineral softwares Feature module. Depending on the fineness of the sample, proper
magnification was selected. Calibration of the contrast and brightness was made in order to create
a proper grey level variance between different minerals and by using several tools such as morpho
cut and smoothing touching particle problem was tried to be minimized (Figure 18).

Figure 18. A) Brightness & Contrast adjustments for grey levels. B) Particle and background adjustments by MorphoCut,
Smoothing and Threshold tools on Inca Mineral software.

After completing the proper adjustment and experimental setup, the software randomly chooses a
set of fields to analyze over each sample. In order to finish the whole run in 10 to 12 hours (for
four samples), a time limit of approximately 3 hours for each individual sample was used. Analysis
went through tens of randomly chosen fields on every sample. In each field 200 to 500 particles
29

were measured depending on the chosen magnification level during the setup. At the end of the
analysis a raw dataset for each individual sample which includes four to eight thousand particles
in total was received.
Besides automated runs, samples were also analyzed using Point analysis module of the INCA
software. This was made to ensure right mineral identification and to gain information on chemical
composition of minerals (Figure 19).

Figure 19. A) Selected points on a single Sph-Gn locked particle B) Spectrum 1- Galena peaks. C) Spectrum 2- Sphalerite Peaks

ii.

Classification of minerals from raw datasets

Received raw dataset cannot be evaluated without data processing since it includes chemical
composition of grains by EDS yet mineral identifications are missing. Therefore, the raw data was
initially processed by Grain Classifier V.1.9 (Parian 2015). Each dataset and previously prepared
mineral setup file were introduced to the software in order to make the chemical composition
mineral match for each individual grain in the dataset. After this initial processing mineral counts,
weight percentages and average chemical compositions can be received. In addition, this converted
data can then be used for further data processing on Grain Analyzer and HSC 7.1 software.
Except for liberation analysis the results of the INCAMineral runs were used to study the variation
in the chemical composition of sphalerite. For this study, mineral setup file was reorganized
including sixteen (16) different sphalerite with varying Fe:Zn ratio. Distribution in the composition
as well as mean and average composition of sphalerite were calculated from this analysis.
iii.

Analysis of fields and grains

Classified INCAMineral data including identified mineral phases was evaluated in Inca Minerals
Grain Analyzer software. By conducting a short investigation on this software, a general idea can
be achieved on the mineralogy and existence of certain possible drawbacks such as touching
particle or edge effect could be observed if there is any. As an example to the Grain an individual
field and particle investigation can be seen in Figure 20.
30

Figure 20. A Phase view for a single field examined SEM work. B) Single particle data view with particle components and sizes.

Additionally, this software was used together with Grain classifier software, in order to detect
possible other existing minerals in the ore such as zinc oxides which were not introduced in
standard mineral setup.
iv.

Final Processing of Automated Mineralogical Data

In HSC 7.1 Geo module, the INCAMineral data was further processed for acquiring quantitative
mineralogical information on fractional and bulk level. The data report includes modal mineralogy,
calculated elemental compositions and liberation distribution. Prior to the mentioned data
processing on HSC 7.1 the list of minerals was simplified by combining minerals with similar
properties in flotation (Table 3).
Table 3. Mineral Setup- Selected, Found and Combined Minerals
Min ID

Mineral
Groups

Mineral
Abbr.

Properties

Combined Minerals

14098*

Sphalerite*

Sp

5.8 % Fe*, 61.3 % Zn*, 32.9 % Fe with trace Cd

NA

14021

Galena

Gn

86.2% Pb, 13.6 % S with trace Ag, Se and Te

NA

52

Chalcopyrite

Ccp

Stoichiometric (30. 4 % Fe, 34.6 % Cu, 35.0 % S)

Cubanite

69

Pyrrhotite

Po

Stoichiometric (60.1 % Fe, 39.9 % S)

Pyrite, Arsenopyrite, Pentlandite

6971

Magnetite

Mgt

5.3 % Ti, 2.3 % Al, 0.1 % Cr, 0.3 % Mn, 1.7 % Mg,
60.5 % Fe

Titano-Magnetite, Siderite, Ilmenite,

Chromite

53

Quartz

Qtz

Stoichiometric (46.7 % Si, 53.3 % O)

NA

6303

Orthoclase

Or

30.3 % Si, 10.6 % Al, 4.1 % Na, 6.7 % K, 47.4 % O,

0.6 % Ca, 0.1 % Fe

Plagioclase, Zircon

6493

Actinolite

Act

25.6 % Si, 0.8 % Al, 7.5 % Fe, 0.1 % Mn, 10.8 %

Mg, 9.1 % Ca, 0.8 % Na, 45.5 % O, 0.3 % H

Diopside, Hornblende, Epidote, Andradite,

Anorthite, Albite, Scapolite, Garnet

9695

Biotite

Bt

17.0 % Si, 2.6 % Ti, 7.5 % Al, 13.8 % Fe, 0.3 % Mn,
7.4 % Mg, 0.2 % Na, 8.3 % K, 38.6 % O, 0.2 % Cl

214

Calcite

Cal

Stoichiometric (40.0 % Ca, 48.0 % , O, 12.0 % C)

Muscovite, Chlorite, Cummingtonite,

Titanite
Dolomite, Anhydrite, Magnesite, Barite,
Ankerite, Apatite, Fluorapatite, Monazite,
Anhydite

*Sphalerite elemental content was introduced individually for each orebody sample according to the mineral classification results.
All identified minerals on SEM can be seen under combined minerals column in Table 3. In order
to have more representable results and efficient study, most of the abundant minerals were
combined under 10 major mineral groups. These groups were named according to the most
31

abundant mineral of the group. In addition, from many different property minerals in the mineral
database of HSC 7.1 given property minerals were chosen considering the background knowledge
on the deposit.
Following the procedures of data collection, classification and data processing size fraction data of
each orebody sample was combined using HSC. 7.1 to a single stream. Oversized particles, due to
particle touching, were filtered. Mass distributions of each size fractions input was also taken from
the wet screening results. The processing of the liberation data continued in HSC 7.1 by binning
of the particle data. In this part of the data processing, liberated, binary, tertiary and more complex
particles were grouped in narrow liberation classes. Lastly, the missing fractions of >20 m and
150 212 m were extrapolated with the tool of the software. Finally, combined data was examined
and tables and graphs of mode of occurrence, liberation degrees and modal mineralogy were
prepared.
3.2.2 Investigation of critical plant streams
In order to gain knowledge on the current plant conditions for each section certain streams were
selected for chemical and PSD analysis. Chemical analysis results of all collected plant samples
(P-1102, 2102, 3102, 4102, 5202, 7101, 8101) were used for a 4 section simple mass balancing of
the circuit using the Simulation module of HSC 7.1. These results gave background information
for evaluating laboratory flotation and simulation results.
Particle size analysis of floatation feed and product streams for different sections were made. These
results were used in grindability part of the study and for the calibration of laboratory tests grinding
time. (P-1102, 5202)
In addition, several other collected plant stream samples PSDs were determined in order to observe
the intermediate grinding effect on the circuit. For that purpose, bulk cleaner feed, separation
flotation feed, lead cleaner feed and concentrate products samples were used (P- 2012, 3102, 4102,
7101, 8101).
All the samples were wet sieved in order to plot a time vs cumulative passing size curve. Ground
product PSDs were also modeled by using Rosin-Rammler method. Lastly, for the selected
grinding time, laser diffraction equipment (Cilas) was used for reconciliation of the size distribution
analysis. As an example to this procedure, P-1102 results from linear-log reading, Cilas-laser
diffraction technique and RR size distribution methods can be seen in the Figure 21 below.

32

1102-PSD with 3 different Methods

180
160
140

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
50% Pass

80% Pass

Lin-Log Reading

Cilas-Laser Dff

90% Pass

RR

Figure 21. 1102 PSD result evaluation

3.2.3 Grindability
i.

Determination of Grinding Time for Laboratory Experiments

For the flotation tests appropriate laboratory grinding time had to be determined. Commonly, for
this kind of flotation studies, three approaches are used. First method is to apply same grinding
time to different samples. However, since the particle size distributions of feed is very effective on
flotation performance as explained previously, further analyzed methods would be more
appropriate. As a second method, reaching similar particle size distribution for different type of
ores can be applied. Lastly, as the third method, application of grinding that reaches similar degree
of liberation can also be applied. Since third method requires the background knowledge of
liberation conditions of each different orebody sample, which was unknown at the beginning of the
study, the second approach; i.e. similar PSD was used for all the orebody samples.
Basically, three of each crushed-split solid samples of 1kg (R-T1, T2, T3; M-T1, T2, T3; S-T1,
T2, T3; BB-T1, T2, T3) were ground for 5, 10 and 15 minutes with stainless steel laboratory scale
rod mil. Selection of the times were done based on previous works where 10-11 minute grinding
time was detected to be fitting with plant conditions (d80 = 100-110 m). All the grinding
procedures were made in near 60 % solid conditions by addition of approximately 650 ml water.
Selection of the rod mill was made according to the previous studies which showed the laboratory
scale rod mill provides similar product PSD with industrial scale closed circuit grinding conditions.
Additionally, stainless steel mill and rod selection was made since the plant utilizes an AG mill for
grinding.
33

After grinding each orebody sample with three different times, results were compared in a linearlog plot and additionally by laser diffraction and RR methods as introduced before. As an example
to comparison plots, three times ground Reference and fresh flotation feed stream (1102) are shown
in Figure 22.
Plant Flotation Feed vs Different Grinding Times for Reference
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%

Cum % Pass.

70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
10

100

1000

Particle Size (m)

Plant Flotataion Feed Sample

10 min

5 min

15 min

Figure 22. Grinding times vs PSD plot for Reference

ii.

Bond Work Index determination by GCT

The Bond ball mill index was determined for each orebody sample. For this purpose, GCT method
was used. Even, the Zinkgruvan plant utilizes an AG mill and a ball mill BWI index would not
represent an actual forecast of the industrial scale, grindability index was used for comparing the
orebody samples. The tests were made with approximately 220 g crushed samples (<3.35 mm).
Each sample was ground by a small scale laboratory ball mill in 5 stages of 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 minutes
within dry grinding conditions. After each grinding stage the energy spent was recorded and the
relative product was dry sieved.
After finishing the experiment, by using the gathered screening results, d80 values for the feed and
five individual products were estimated. Recorded energy spend values were calibrated according
to the ball mill efficiency models.(Mwanga, pers. comm. 2015) Considering the BWI equation
square roots of each d80 value was calculated. After these calculations, efficient energy spent vs.
size reduction for cumulative grinding times of 2, 5, 10, 17 and 25 minutes was plotted for each
sample. Lastly, the calibration factor for this particular ball mill (Equation 7) was applied to all
results and the work index values were reported.

34

3.2.4 Flotation kinetics tests and simulation

i.

Experimental Setup

Determination of the flotation kinetics for each orebody sample was another sub objective of the
study. In this part of the study, a laboratory scale Wemco cell (2.5 liters) was used in fixed aeration
rate and impeller speed conditions. The complete laboratory flotation setup can be seen in the
Figure 23.

Figure 23. Laboratory flotation setup

The test flowsheet can be seen in Figure 24. Each kinetics test was started by grinding, either for
ensuring fresh particle surfaces (45 seconds) or by utilizing determined grinding time (10 minutes)
for the crushed bulk samples. The ground material was washed down into the flotation cell and
required amount of water was added in order to reach around 30% solid. As mentioned previously,
in order to be able to conduct identical flotation test conditions, one of the necessities is to have
similar froth thickness and relatively similar pulp height in the cell. By using a 2.5 liter flotation
cell for 1kg sample, considering the similar density and volume values of the solid material, the
added water should be also similar and at a rate of 70 % of the pulp by weight (2.2-2.3 liters
including grinding water).
After pulping, the tests continued with the conditioning of the pulp prior to flotation. It was planned
to make the laboratory flotation tests in the conditions of fitting pH and reagent dosages which
applied in the plant since the objective is to make a forecast for current plant conditions. Therefore,
during the conditioning stage of each flotation test, initially the pH of the pulp was adjusted to 8.00
by using sulfuric acid (4%). In rougher-scavenger flotation kinetics, 25 g/t SIPX (2.5% by weight
conc.) and 20 g /ton NasFroth (100% conc.) were added into the cell during the conditioning stage.
35

Total conditioning time was five minutes, with three minutes for the collector and the rest two
minutes for the frother. After conditioning, aeration was turned on and the collection of a
concentrate began for 0.5, 1, 2, 4 and 8 minutes (cumulative time). After the collection of these
first five concentrates, aeration was turned back off and a secondary conditioning of 1.5 - 2 minutes
was made by addition of 13 g /ton SIPX. Also pH adjustment to reach around 8.00 value was done
by using sulfuric acid again. After this step, one last concentrate of 8 more minutes (16 minutes
flotation time in total) was taken and the test was finalized. All seven products (including tailings)
were weighed, filtered and 30-50 g of material was split and sent to Zinkgruvan for chemical
analysis by XRF.

Figure 24. Rougher-scavenger flotation kinetics laboratory test flowsheet

ii.

Rougher Flotation Kinetics Tests

For the rougher-scavenger kinetics one sample for each orebody were used (4). In addition to these
four tests two other tests of previously collected plant samples (P-1102, 5202) were made for
comparison and calibration (2).
Two repeat tests (2) were done for the quality assurance & quality control (QA/QC) purposes. This
subject will be described more detailed in section 3.2.6 QA / QC procedures.
iii.

Zinc- Lead Selective Flotation Kinetics Tests

In order to have an indication on the separation flotation kinetics for current plant conditions, one
more test by using collected plant sample of separation flotation feed (P-3101) (1) was made.
3.2.5 Kinetic Modeling, Simulation and Production Forecast
In the final stage of the study, by using HSC 7.1 Sim module and collected data, simulations were
done to have production forecasts for each new orebody sample. The results were evaluated against
mineralogical analyses.
i.

Element Mineral Conversion

Chemical analyses of the products were done with XRF technique. For kinetic models it is decided
to use following 5 mineral classes: sphalerite, galena, chalcopyrite, pyrrhotite (as combined iron
sulphides) and non sulphide gangue (NSG).
36

According to this plan, Zn %, Pb % and Cu % results were converted to sphalerite, galena and
chalcopyrite minerals, respectively by using corresponding elemental composition of each mineral.
Individual zinc content of sphalerite was used for each orebody sample. For galena and
chalcopyrite stoichiometric mineral compositions were used for all samples.
Residual sulphur was used to calculate iron sulphides represented by pyrrhotite (60.14 % Fe 39.86
% S). Lastly, NSG mineral class was calculated by summing up the sum of minerals to 100% In
the Table 4 below, element and converted mineral values for back calculated Mellanby feed sample
are given.
Table 4. Element Mineral Conversion for Back Calculated Mellanby Feed
Sample

Elements

Mellanby Back calculated

Feed

ii.

Minerals

Zn %

Pb %

Cu %

S%

Sph %

Gn %

Ccp %

Po%

NSG %

6.557

1.494

0.0332

4.461

11.00

1.73

0.0958

1.448

85.7

Flotation kinetics and mass component determination

For kinetic modeling cumulative mineral recovery values of the five mineral classes were
introduced to the responding flowsheet in the Sim module of HSC 7.1 (Figure 24). For flotation
kinetic determination (model fitting), floatability component method with three components of fast,
slow and non-floating was selected.
From the calculation results by using, time versus cumulative recovery results for mentioned five
mineral group kinetic properties was modeled individually. As an example, Reference, galena
flotation kinetics model fit and result kinetic and mass component values are presented in Figure
25.

Figure 25. Three component flotation kinetics model fit for Reference galena mineral

iii.

Checking the determined kinetic properties

The simulation results were first checked against experimental results using similar flotation circuit
and flotation times as in the laboratory test (Figure 24).

37

In order to conduct this study, Particles tool was used in HSC 7.1 Sim software. Mineral setup and
assemblage were defined considering the mineralogical study results. However, instead of using
ten mineral classes as in mineralogical study, five mineral classes used in model fitting were used.
Chemical composition of mineral classes and kinetic properties were introduced to the software.
Once the mineral property description was complete, units of the flowsheet was also introduced.
Kinetic mass components for each mineral were defined in conditioning model and kinetic speed
values were defined in flotation cell models. Since, froth recovery Rf and bubble area flux Sb
parameters were undetermined, they were fixed as 1. In these conditions, floatation kinetics
became independent from the unit specific properties and only dependent to particle properties (P)
for each orebody sample. (See Eq. 1)
Simulation results of this setup was compared with the initial experimental results for galena and
sphalerite mineral groups. Variation between experimental and modeling results cumulative
recoveries were calculated.
iv.

Open circuit batch simulation

Following the determination and checking of flotation kinetics the simulation flowsheet was
reorganized according to the plant conditions for bulk rougher, scavenger, cleaner and selective
sphalerite-galena flotation (Figure 26). For this part different kinetic properties were used for bulk
flotation and selective flotation with the assumption of conservation of kinetic properties within
these stages.

Figure 26. Open circuit batch flotation flowsheet

38

As it was mentioned earlier, since the galena- sphalerite separation stage kinetics for new orebody
samples could not be acquired, kinetics of sphalerite-galena separation was taken from the plant
mass balance.
v.

Closed circuit continuous batch simulation

After evaluating the simulation results from full closed circuit, circuit was converted into closed,
and kinetic definition was changed for continuous model (see eq. 2, 3). Simulation results were
compared with actual recovery grade data acquired from the plant.
3.2.6 QA / QC procedures
Several quality assurance and quality control procedure were applied during the study. The aim
was to measure and, if possible, improve the quality of the experimental results.
These activities can be examined in two major topics.
i.

Sampling procedures

a. Feed sample preparation procedur e

One of the QA / QC activities is to check the solid orebody sample preparation procedure error
which is related with splitting the samples after crushing and screening. In order to detect this error,
two duplicate samples were prepared for M-T2-1, i.e. M-T1-1, M-T3-1 (Table 5). Chemical
analyses were made for the duplicates. The sampling error determined for the Mellanby (M) sample
was used when evaluating the results of the other samples, too.
Table 5. Feed sample preparation QA/QC samples
Source

Sample Name

QA/QC Sample 1

QA /QC Sample 2

M-T2-1

M-T1-1

M-T3-1

b. Chemical analysis sample preparation procedure

One other source of error in the study is sample preparation for chemical analysis. In order to,
detect the relative error to this procedure, one selected product was sampled three times and sent
for chemical analyses. For this purpose flotation kinetics test product of M-T2-1 was selected.
(Table 6).
Table 6.Chemical analysis sample preparation QA/QC samples

ii.

Source

Sample Name

QA/QC Sample 1

QA/QC Sample 2

M-T2-1

M-T2-2

M-T2-3

Flotation test procedure uniformity (Composite error)

Secondary QA/QC rougher-scavenger flotation test for the detection of composite error was made
with Savsjon as two repeats (Table 7) Products were analyzed and standard deviation of grades and
recoveries were determined.

39

Table 7. Flotation test composite error detection

Purpose

Source

Test Name

Sample Name

Product Sample Names

Flotation Kinetics

S2

S-T7

S-T7-C1;C2;C3;C4;C5;C6;T

QA/QC 1

S3

S-T5

S-T5-C1;C2;C3;C4;C5;C6;T

QA/QC 2

S4

S-T8

S-T8-C1;C2;C3;C4;C5;C6;T

4. Results
4.1 Mineralogy
Five size fractions from each orebody feed sample were examined for mineralogy. Results are
summarized in following sub chapters.
4.1.1 Iron content analysis of Sphalerite
Literature study indicated that increasing iron content of the sphalerite mineral affects the
floatability negatively. The results of the analyses which were made to investigate sphalerite
zinc/iron content of different orebody samples are presented in the Figure 27, Table 8, Table 9.
Iron content of the sphalerite increases in the following order: Reference, Borta Bakom, Savsjon
and Mellanby. Borta Bakom shows similarity with Reference and Savsjon shows similarity with
Mellanby. However, none of the orebody samples, including Borta Bakom has as low as or lower
content of iron in sphalerite as in the Reference.

Iron Content Conditions for Sphalerite Mineral

Reference

25.00%
Borta Bakom

Weight %

20.00%

Savsjon

Mellanby

15.00%

2 per. Mov.
Avg.
(Reference)
2 per. Mov.
Avg. (Borta
Bakom)
2 per. Mov.
Avg. (Savsjon)

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

Iron Content %
Figure 27. Iron content frequency for sphalerite mineral in different orebody samples

40

2 per. Mov.
Avg. (Mellanby)

This may lead to a sphalerite activation problem related with collector bonding. Eventually, this
phenomena can cause recovery problems for sphalerite in all three orebody samples, especially in
Mellanby and Savsjon.
Table 8. Limiting cumulative values for iron content of sphalerite
Orebody

>5 % Fe

>7 % Fe

>9 % Fe

>11 % Fe

> 13 % Fe

Reference

58.39%

26.95%

8.83%

3.18%

1.55%

Borta Bakom

69.25%

38.88%

11.24%

4.26%

2.17%

Savsjon

90.36%

61.92%

24.08%

5.68%

2.40%

Mellanby

91.48%

61.70%

22.29%

6.03%

2.95%

Another problem which can be expected according to these results is the lower zinc and higher iron
content in zinc concentrates for Savsjon and Mellanby which may decrease the value of the
concentrate. However, in order to understand real impact of this problem further analysis should
be done on zinc concentrates.
Table 9. Average Zn and Fe content of Sphalerite of Different Orebody samples
Orebody

Zn* %

Fe** %

Reference

61.65

5.49

Borta Bakom

60.83

6.31

Mellanby

59.60

7.54

Savsjon

59.54

7.60

* Zinc content values are back calculated from determined iron contents.
** Iron content values are determined as mean values from this study. Main purpose is to introduce differences between
orebody samples. They should not be taken as absolute values.

4.1.2 Modal Mineralogy

i.

General Results

Bulk modal mineralogy for each orebody sample which was calculated from size fractions is given
in Table 10. Significant differences between the samples are highlighted. Iron sulphides content is
higher in studied orebody samples than in the Reference; especially in Savsjon. Iron sulphides can
have two major detrimental effect in flotation. Firstly, despite the lower kinetic values of iron
sulphides, they still float and therefore, decrease sphalerite and galena grade in concentrates.
Connected with the collection problem these minerals also can cause collector starvation for target
minerals since they also can adsorb the collector.
Table 10. Modal Mineralogy of orebody samples
Ore Body

Sp %

Gn %

Po %

Mgt %

Ccp %

Qtz %

Cal %

Ort %

Act %

Bt %

Reference

19.48

7.29

0.88

0.45

0.14

19.91

2.73

20.66

16.94

11.51

Borta Bakom

13.16

4.58

1.36

0.54

0.07

25.48

0.82

24.18

18.87

10.94

Mellanby

13.66

2.28

1.13

2.33

0.03

21.98

2.73

22.31

21.34

12.20

Savsjon

22.68

5.81

3.50

0.18

0.21

8.03

2.52

26.61

20.43

10.04

41

Mellanby has significantly higher content of iron oxides (mostly magnetite) compared to other
samples. Both iron oxide and sulphides also can cause undesired pulp chemistry conditions (Eh)
and this can effect collector adsorption of target minerals up to some extent.
Borta Bakom has lower carbonate mineral grades. This should have a positive effect on flotation
performance since some of carbonate group minerals are naturally hydrophobic and can cause
contamination of concentrate. Additionally they can partially adsorb the collector. However, the
difference is not that significant. Another advantage of low carbonates in Borta Bakom is the lower
initial pH of the pulp which would decrease the sulfuric acid consumption partly. Savsjon has lower
quartz content but this should not have any influence in flotation. Variation in quartz grade can
effect on grindability.
The grades of the main target minerals; sphalerite and galena; are illustrated in Figure 28.
Reference and Savsjon have higher sphalerite grade (19.5 %, 22.7 % respectively); whereas Borta
Bakom and Mellanby has lower grades (13.2 %, 13.7 % respectively). For galena on the other hand,
Reference has the highest grade (7.29 %) followed by Savsjon (5.81 %), Borta Bakom (4.58 %)
and Mellanby (2.28 %). Especially Mellanby has very low galena grade comparing with Reference.

Sphalerite Galena Contents of Orebody Samples

30.00

Mineral Content %

25.00
Sp %

20.00

15.00

10.00

Gn %

5.00

0.00
Reference

Borta Bakom

Mellanby

Savsjon

Orebody
Figure 28. Modal Mineralogy of orebody samples

For quality control back calculated chemical composition from modal analysis is compared to
chemical assays by XRF in Table 11. Back calculated composition from automated mineralogy
shows higher Pb, Zn, S and Fe grades than actual analyses. This can be due to two reasons. Either
samples have been segregated in sample preparation due to high density difference of minerals or
mineral identification has failed. Since the reconciliation of mineral identification with used
42

software setup on Point ID module was made, the second reasons is not plausible. Therefore, it is
believed that samples have segregated in sample preparation and this must be considered when
making conclusions on mineralogical analyses.
Table 11. Comparison of XRF and SEM analysis
Orebody
Reference OT- ZG- Chemical Analysis

Fe %
4.28

S%
5.30

Pb %
4.03

Zn %
8.94

Reference OT - LTU - SEM

5.22

7.80

6.29

11.51

Borta Bakom OT- ZG- Chemical Analysis

4.68

4.71

3.02

6.49

Borta Bakom OT - LTU - SEM

5.16

5.52

3.95

7.73

Mellanby OT- ZG- Chemical Analysis

5.88

4.76

1.76

7.29

Mellanby OT - LTU - SEM

6.66

5.26

1.97

7.89

Savsjon OT- ZG- Chemical Analysis

4.86

7.59

3.32

10.52

Savsjon OT - LTU - SEM

7.27

9.71

5.01

13.09

i.

Zinc Oxide Mineral Existence in Orebody Samples

It is known that Zinkgruvan deposit includes gahnite (ZnAl2O4) in several previously found
orebodies as a secondary zinc carrier. Gahnite and other possible zinc oxides are expected to be
majorly hydrophilic and end up to tailing in flotation conditions used. Therefore, the presence of
several different zinc oxide minerals was double checked.
Automated mineralogy identified gahnite, franklinite (ZnFe2O4) and zincite (ZnO) in trace amounts
in all orebody samples. However, when examining these grains in detail, it was found that zincite
and franklinite were only found due to wrong identification on SEM analysis on particle edges due
to edge effect (Figure 29) and no positive identified grains were found for these two minerals.

Figure 29. Examples of wrong identifications on SEM for A) Franklinite in Reference B)Gahnite in Borta Bakom C) Zincite in
Mellanby

Gahnite was also similarly found as wrong identifications in several particles for Borta Bakom and
Reference samples. However, most of the gahnite which was found in Savsjon and Mellanby
samples were actually positive identifications. In order to estimate the gahnite grade in Savsjon
and Mellanby, highest gahnite grade fractions in each orebody sample was used. (Table 12). It is
seen that even with this worst case scenario approach, gahnite can carry maximum 3% of total zinc
in Mellanby and 1% in Savsjon. In bulk sample calculation, (i.e. av. of five size fractions) zinc
element carried by gahnite was found as 1.5 % and 0.5 % for Mellanby and Savsjon respectively.
43

Table 12. Proportion of Zinc in Gahnite for Savsjon and Mellanby

Savsjon

Av Sphalerite
Grade %
20.90

Zinc Carried by
Sphalerite %
12.12

Highest Observed
Gahnite Grade %
0.37

Zinc Carried
by Gahnite %
0.13

Zinc
Total
12.25

Zn in Gahnite /
Zn Total
1.06%

Mellanby

13.80

8.00

0.68

0.24

8.24

2.89%

Orebody

4.1.3 Mineral Liberation

A size fraction of 75 106 m is used here to compare the degree of liberation of different samples.
Especially fine size fractions had a problem with touching particles and this could not be overcome
even by filtering out too big particles. The 75-106 m size fraction showed realistic results and
represents around 20 % solid weight in all samples.
The liberation degree of galena is highest in Borta Bakom and Mellanby, about 75%, followed by
Reference (60%) and Savsjon (57%) (Figure 30). Galena is mostly associated with sphalerite. Since
bulk flotation of galena and sphalerite is applied in the plant, liberated and galena sphalerite binary
total amounts should also be examined. Borta Bakom, Mellanby and Reference, totals are over 85
%; for Savsjon this values drops to around 75 %.

75-106 m Fraction Galena Liberation Results

100%
Liberated
90%
80%
Binary with Sp

70%
60%

Ternary with Sp

50%
40%

Binary with NSG

30%
20%
10%

Others

0%
Borta Bakom

Mellanby

Reference

Savsjon

Figure 30. 75-106 m fraction galena liberation degree results

44

It can be expected that Savsjon would have either higher non-floating mass component (loss of
galena) or slow floating mass component which would end up with contamination of concentrate.
Based on galena liberation information Mellanby and Borta Bakom are expected to have faster
kinetics for galena compared to Savsjon and Reference.
In comparison with galena, sphalerite liberation degree for all orebody samples is higher (Figure
31.) Additionally, the differences between the orebody samples are less significant for sphalerite.
For all orebody samples, fully liberated sphalerite amount is between 80 85 %. Fully liberated
and galena binary totals for sphalerite is around 90 % for Borta Bakom, Reference and Savsjon
whereas it is less than 85 % for Mellanby.

75-106 Fraction Sphalerite Liberation Results

100%
Liberated

90%
80%

Binary with Gn

70%
60%
50%

Binary with Po

40%
30%
Binary with NSG
20%
10%
Others
0%
Borta Bakom

Mellanby

Reference

Savsjon

Figure 31. 75-106 m fraction sphalerite liberation results

4.2 Current Plant Conditions

Figure 32 shows the mass balance of the plant performance. Bulk concentrate recoveries for both
lead and zinc are around 94 %. The zinc recovery into the final zinc concentrate is 91%; 6% is lost
into final tailings and 3 % to the lead concentrate. The lead recovery is lower, 82% but it is mostly
lost into the zinc concentrate (12%).
45

Figure 32. Current simple 4 section mass balance of the plant sections

Particle size distributions for bulk rougher feed section streams is shown in Figure 33. The fresh
feed (1102) is much coarser (P80 = 100 um) than the reground (5202) and the bulk rougher
concentrate (i.e. cleaner feed, 2102). The difference between fresh feed and floated product
believed to be due to both regrinding procedure and size selectivity of flotation procedure itself.
Size selectivity of the flotation process can be explained with three major reasons. Firstly, target
minerals of flotation process (metal sulphides) due to their structural properties are more brittle
than gangue minerals. Therefore, the particle size of the target minerals reporting to the rougher
concentrate is believed to be finer than that of the gangue minerals.
Second major reason is related with the kinetic properties of minerals in flotation. It is known that
liberated particles tend to float faster than the particles which are locked with gangues. Considering
a standard liberation degree for a particular material, finer size materials are expected to have
higher liberation degrees. Therefore, fully liberated higher kinetic degree particles are normally
expected to float during rougher stage whereas non-liberated (lower kinetic value particles) are
expected to float in scavenger stage of flotation or report to tailings. This reason also explains the
difference between P-5202 and P-2012 streams. It can be seen that (Figure 33), even with the
regrinding procedure it was subjected to; P-5202 still has less fines (-20 m) than P-2102 which
indicates that scavenger float has higher PSD than rougher float.
Third and last possible reason can be entrapment which is the bubble attachment stability
problem which occurs on coarse particles due to their large size. However, normally in industrial
scale, this problem occurs on ignorable levels, since the grinding procedure is adjusted in order to
avoid this kind of recovery affecting problems. Therefore, the last reason is not believed to be
effective as first two others.
46

Bulk Rougher Section Streams

100.00%
90.00%

Cum Wt. Pass. %

80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%

30.00%
20.00%
10

100

1000

Particle Size (m)

1102-Fresh Feed

5202-Reground Feed

2102-Cleaner Feed

Figure 33. Bulk rougher section related stream PSDs

Since the tailing stream of the plant was not sampled, the effect of the flotation process size
selectivity could not be evaluated. However, considering the reground stream conditions, (low solid
recovery (Figure 32) and PSD) size selectivity of flotation process believed to have much higher
effect than regrinding process.
Another section of interest for particle size distribution analysis was separation flotation section
with feed and final concentrates. Therefore, the samples taken from separation flotation feed, lead
cleaner feed and both lead & zinc concentrates were wet sieved (Figure 34).
Zinc concentrate is clearly coarser than lead concentrate. This fact can be explained with several
reasons. The first reason is galenas more brittle structure than sphalerite against size reduction
procedures. Therefore, it is believed that size reduction for galena was higher than sphalerite
minerals. Secondly, mineralogical studies shows the abundance of very fine galena grains is more
than sphalerite, this condition of the ore can be another reason to explain this PSD difference.
Lastly, as it was introduced before, there is a regrinding unit for the lead cleaner middling which
applies a further size reduction on the lead stream. However, considering the similarity in PSDs
of final lead concentrate (8101) and lead cleaner feed (4102) streams, this regrinding unit is not
believed to be highly effective on this difference between lead-zinc PSD concentrates as other two
previously explained reasons.

47

Separation Flotation Stream PSD's

100.00%
90.00%

Cum Wt. Pass. %

80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
10

100

1000

Particle Size (m)

3102-Sep. Flot Feed

4102-Lead Cleaner Feed

7102-Zinc Concentrate

8102-Lead Concentrate

Figure 34. Separation flotation plant section feed-product stream PSDs

For reconciliation purposes, several of these plant streams were also examined with laser
diffraction technique and the results can be seen in the Table 13 below. All the wet sieving results
introduced in this part of the study can be seen in the Appendix 2.
Table 13. Laser diffraction particle size passing results for plant stream samples
Cumulative Passing Size

Stream
1102

2102

3102

4102

5202

7101

8101

50 % Pass. (m)

48

21

26

16

35

29

13

80 % Pass. (m)

110

60

64

42

66

62

28

90 % Pass. (m)

150

85

88

63

83

83

36

4.3 Grindability
4.3.1 Grinding Time Determination for Laboratory Studies
Grindability studies for the required grinding time determination on laboratory scale rod mill were
made for each orebody sample with three different time of 5, 10 and 15 minutes. In the Figure 35
below, 10 minute grinding PSD results which were acquired from wet sieving can be seen with
1102 fresh flotation feed stream in the plant.

48

10 minute Ground PSD's

100.00%

90.00%

Cum Wt. Pass %

80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10

100

1000

Particle Size (m)

Reference

Mellanby

Savsjon

Borta Bakom

1102

Figure 35. 10 minute grinding PSD results for all orebody samples vs. fresh flotation feed stream PSD (1102)

10 minutes grinding time in laboratory rod mill gives quite similar size distributions within the
plant (1102) for all orebody samples (Figure 35, Table 14). However, due to the AG mill
application in Zinkgruvan, it is seen that the product curves have slight differences. AG mill closed
circuit hyrdocylone overflow have more spread particle size distribution comparing with the rod
mill products. In other words, 1102 has higher amounts both for the finest and the coarsest sizes.
In order to decrease the diverse effect of this fact, instead of focusing on d 80 fractions in the
materials for fitting, 65-75 % percent passing amount fitting between plant and laboratory
conditions was preferred. Consequently, 10 minutes grinding for all orebody samples which give
slightly lower d80 values comparing 1102 was accepted as the suitable grinding time.
Table 14. 10 minutes grinding results comparison with 1102 plant feed
Stream

10 minute Grinding Results

50% Pass-m

80% Pass- m

90% Pass- m

1102-AG mill OF

50

105

145

Reference

53

98

115

Ssvsjon

52

95

110

Mellanby

58

105

125

Borta Bakom

50

95

110

According to all methods, Borta Bakom have finest particle size among the four orebody samples
whereas Mellanby is slightly coarser. Savsjon and Reference show very high similarity with each
other and in particle size they are in between of Borta Bakom and Mellanby.
49

Other than 10 minute grinding, 5 and 15 minute grinding products were also wet sieved and their
distributions were plotted on a log-linear curve. Relative PSD results and plots can be seen in
Appendix 3.
4.3.2 Bond Work Index with GCT method
All orebody samples show similar grindability also in the geometallurgical comminution test
(GCT; Table 15). Reference, Borta Bakom and Mellanby gave similar BWI values. According to
this study Savsjon has the lowest BWI index which is believed to be due to less Quartz mineral
abundance (Table 10).
Table 15. GCT test results for Different orebody samples Bond Work Index determination
Efficient
Energy
Spent*

Time
(min)

Reference
D80 (m)

Borta Bakom
D80 (m)

Mellanby
D80 (m)

Orebody

BWI

1915.35

Savsjon
D80
(m)
1936.00

0.00

2011.86

1843.69

Reference

11.15

0.88

1894.64

1731.03

1712.51

1663.94

Borta Bakom

11.40

2.80

1492.80

1421.92

1316.29

1214.82

Mellanby

11.07

10

782.84

906.87

637.23

517.55

Savsjon

6.40

10.37

10.56

17

394.21

401.48

282.56

257.96

16.50

25

169.96

173.82

174.85

157.41

*Efficient energy spent values were acquired from A. Mwanga and determined according to standard ball mill grinding efficiency
models.

4.4 Flotation
4.4.1 Bulk Rougher-Scavenger Flotation
Chemical analysis results of bulk flotation tests were firstly used for back calculation of feed grades
from flotation products and comparison of these values with feed sample chemical analyses was
made. Complete analyzed samples including unprocessed samples can be seen in Appendix 4.1.
Relative difference of feed and back-calculated feed results can be seen in Table 16 below for all
orebody samples.
Reference and Savsjon feed vs. back calculated feed analysis are very similar and check out in this
basic assessment. Borta Bakom and Mellanby show significant difference in analyzed and back
calculated grades. This is most probably due to calibrate problems in chemical analyses in certain
grades and should be further examined. Elemental and mineral grade and recovery calculated for
each sample are given in Appendix 4.2.
Table 16. Feed vs. Back calculated feed analysis results
Reference

Feed

Borta Bakom

Savsjon

Mellanby

Zn %

Pb %

Zn %

Pb %

Zn %

Pb %

Zn %

Pb %

8.94

4.03

6.49

3.02

10.52

3.52

7.13

1.75

Back Calculated Feed

8.86

3.96

5.99

2.46

10.58

3.54

6.56

1.49

Relative Difference (1-F/BCF)

-0.90%

-1.77%

-8.35%

-22.76%

0.57%

0.56%

-8.69%

-17.45%

50

Comparison of sphalerite and galena recovery results is shown in Figure 36. The Reference sample
gave satisfactory recoveries in bulk flotation. These values are even higher than in plant conditions
due to additional collector usage in the laboratory scavenger flotation. However, none of the new
orebody samples could give equally satisfactory results for sphalerite collection. Especially for
Mellanby, sphalerite recovery of bulk flotation is as low as 62.3 %.

Comparison of Orebody Samples - Ultimate Recoveries

100.00%

98.24%

94.99%
88.23%

Ultimate Recoveries %

90.00%

93.26%

97.16%
90.69%

90.58%

80.00%
70.00%

62.27%

60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Reference

Borta Bakom

Savsjon

Mellanby

Orebody
Sphalerite Ultimate Recovery

Galena Ultimate Recovery

Figure 36. Comparison of orebody samples according to their bulk flotation ultimate recovery results

Galena recoveries from bulk flotation are satisfactory for all samples which is expected since
galena mineral is commonly a better floater comparing with sphalerite. It generally does not need
any activator support for collector adsorption.
Additionally, selectivity of rougher-scavenger flotation for lead and zinc was examined on graderecovery curves with cumulative values of 2 to 16 minutes. Zinc grade- recovery curve can be seen
in Figure 37. Not only recovery values, concentrate zinc grades also vary from one orebody sample
to another. This decrease in the bulk concentrate grades for new orebody samples may due to a
combined outcome of unwanted minerals in the concentrate and variance in the iron grade in
sphalerite. These issues are going to be further discussed in 4.5.4 Simulation & Production Forecast
for New Orebody Samples.

51

Figure 37. Zinc grade-recovery curve for sphalerite according to rougher scavenger kinetic tests

Lead grade recovery curves can be seen in Figure 38. Unlike zinc selectivity for different orebody
samples, lead curves show more similarity. These differences are also going to be discussed in
4.5.4 Simulation & Production Forecast for New Orebody Samples .

Figure 38. Lead grade-recovery curve for galena according to rougher scavenger kinetic tests

52

4.4.2 Evaluation of Flotation Test Results

Flotation results show that all new orebody samples have a recovery problem of sphalerite. Galena
flotation shows satisfactory levels for all orebody samples. Possible reasons for the difference in
sphalerite recovery are discussed below.
i.

Evaluation of Results from Mineralogical Approach for Sphalerite

In order to examine further the possible reasons of sphalerite collection, all significant findings of
the mineralogical study were gathered in Table 17 below. It is believed that, such collection
problem can be due to five main reasons: 1) experimental problems, 2) degree of liberation, 3)
collector starvation, 4) activation of mineral and 5) zinc oxide mineral presence. They are evaluated
individually in order to detect the reason behind sphalerite recovery problem.
Table 17. Gathered mineralogical finding for sphalerite collection problem examination
Liberation
Fully
Liberated
Sph %

Sph - Gn
Binaries
%

Sph
Content
%

Gn
Content
%

Gn / Sph
Ratio

Iron
Sulphide
Content %

Reference

82.75

8.46

19.48

7.29

37.45%

0.88

Iron
Oxide
Content
%
0.45

Borta Bakom

85.48

4.33

13.16

4.58

34.78%

1.36

0.54

Mellanby

82.08

3.17

13.66

2.28

16.70%

1.13

2.33

Savsjon

82.58

8.41

22.68

5.81

25.64%

3.50

0.18

Orebody

Mineral
Property

Modal Mineralogy (According to SEM Results)

Total Iron
Mineral Sph Ratio

Proportion
of Zinc in
Gahnite

Av. Fe
Content of
Sph %

6.83%

NA

5.49

14.44%

NA

6.31

25.33%

2.89%

7.60

16.23%

1.06%

7.54

a. Experimental problems
Experimental problems could be caused by wrong reagent selection or recipe, froth stability,
concentrate collection deficiency due to human error, collection time, and errors in chemical
analyses. The first two can be excluded since already existing and successful recipe was used. Also
satisfactory results were received with the Reference. The other possible problems can also be
excluded since repeats and quality control indicated good experimental reproducibility. Therefore,
it can be concluded that the observed collection problem of sphalerite is not experimental related.
b. Degree of liberation
Low degree of liberation commonly leads to low recoveries. However, liberated sphalerite
proportion for all samples is quite similar (Figure 31). Since bulk sulphide flotation was applied, it
is also important to examine galena binaries of sphalerite. These kinds of particles must have been
recovered relatively well since the galena recoveries are high and 10-20% of galena occurs in
binary galena-sphalerite particles. It can be concluded that even liberation degree can affect the
recovery results slightly it cannot be the main reason for low sphalerite recovery.
c. Collector starvation problem
Collector dosages vary in industrial operations due to varying minerals, mineral grades, particle
size, collector type, chain length of the collector etc. Normally, it is known that current recipe with
25 g / t SIPX is sufficient for Zinkgruvan ore type in industrial scale. It is also important for
53

Zinkgruvan that the collector dosages should be kept in low levels since excess collector usage in
bulk flotation can cause problems in the separation stage. Collector starvation is potentially a
reason for poor recovery of sphalerite. Especially, for Savsjon which has higher zinc grade but also
higher iron sulphide (mainly pyrrhotite) grade too low collector dosage can be the reason, at least
partly.
d. Activation of sphalerite
The recovery problem can be due to poor activation of sphalerite. It is known that generally in leadzinc sulphide ores sphalerite needs activation by extra activator. The possible reasons why
Zinkgruvan does not require activator usage were explained previously as AG mill utilization and
low iron mineral content of the ore. However, as it can be seen from Table 17, there are differences
in mineralogy between the Reference and new orebody samples which all located in varying areas
in the deposit (Table 2, Figure 11).
One significant difference, which can effect activation of sphalerite, is iron mineral - sphalerite
ratio. This ratio is significantly higher in the samples from the new orebody samples; especially in
Mellanby. It can be claimed that this increase causes an undesired pulp chemistry in which
sphalerite cannot adsorb collectors and consequently remains hydrophilic.
Another possible reason for poor sphalerite activation is the galena sphalerite ratio (Table 17).
AG milling potentially creates an electro-chemical environment where lead ions are released and
consequently helps in sphalerite activation. Decrease in galena grade and thus lead ions may have
caused such an activation problem in the orebody samples. Despite this can be the reason of the
problem partially, it is not believed that this is the major reason since the variation in recovery
values does not directly match with the variation on this ratio.
Lastly, some studies showed that increasing iron content of sphalerite has a detrimental effect on
minerals activation. Especially for Savsjon and Mellanby a significant increase in high iron
content sphalerite was observed (Table 17). Again a correlation with recovery values could not be
made since Borta Bakom has a similar sphalerite character with Reference but it still has recovery
problems. Therefore, this problem, if exists, can only have a partial effect on recovery.
e. Zinc oxide presence
Last possible reason of low recovery values is the presence of zinc oxide minerals, particularly
gahnite, in orebody samples. Zinc oxides are majorly hydrophilic in the flotation conditions used
and will end up into tailings thus lowering total zinc recovery. In Savsjon and Mellanby samples
gahnite was found but only in trace amounts. Therefore, gahnite presence cannot explain as big
losses for zinc as found.
ii.

Further Bulk Rougher-Scavenger Flotation Tests

The original study plan was to continue with bulk cleaning and zinc- lead separation flotation after
the rougher flotation. However, as the recovery difference of sphalerite between the samples was
realized the program was redesigned to study further the bulk flotation. In these tests the effort was
to increase the bulk flotation performance of sphalerite. Three different adjustments were done on
54

previous tests. Only the tailings fractions of these tests were analyzed in order to detect if there is
any improvement on non-floating fraction of orebody samples. These results are investigated below
individually for all optimization tests. Complete flotation test report and results can be seen in
Appendix 4.3.
a. Longer grinding time
Liberation analysis showed that Borta Bakom, Savsjon and Reference have similar degree of
liberation. On the other hand, Mellanby has slightly lower degree of liberation of sphalerite. To
exclude the poor mineral liberation as a reason for poor recovery, longer grinding time of 13
minutes was applied to all samples prior to flotation tests. From the standard flotation experiment
shown in Figure 24 only two changes were made. Firstly, the grinding time was increased and
secondly, instead of collecting 5 products in first 8 minute flotation, only one concentrate product
was collected.
Recovery values for sphalerite can be seen in Figure 39. For Mellanby, finer grinding gave
significantly better recovery for sphalerite (+8 %). Mellanby had lower degree of liberation
comparing other three orebody samples. Therefore, some increase was expected but reached 71%
recovery is still significantly lower than in the other orebody samples. Additionally, such a change
in plant flowsheet would add extra grinding costs. This should be considered and further examined
whether this recovery improvement would be more profitable or not for Mellanby.

Standard Test vs. Longer Grinding Time Test for Sph Rec
100.00%
90.00%

88.23% 86.07%

90.69% 90.74%

80.00%

70.56%

Sph Rec

70.00%

62.27%

60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%

0.00%
Borta Bakom

Savsjon
Orebody

Initial Test

Longer Grinding Time

Figure 39. Standard test vs. longer grinding time test for Sph Recoveries

55

Mellanby

For Borta Bakom and Savsjon, slight decreases on the recovery values for sphalerite can be seen.
The portion which could not be collected after this optimization may be related to too fine particles
which were created after longer grinding. However, the differences are within experimental error.
Regardless if the changes are due to very fine particles or normal experimental variation, for Borta
Bakom and Savsjon, longer grinding time application would not be beneficial.
b. Increased collector dosage and collection time
To test whether collector dosage or collection time was too low, another type of adjusted test was
done. (Figure 40). For these tests, thirteen minutes of previous bulk flotation tests was kept the
same with five minute conditioning of 25 g / t SIPX initial collector usage followed by 8 minutes
collection and secondary conditioning with 13 g / t SIPX addition and 4 more minute collection.
After this procedure, the previous tests were adjusted by two additional conditioning with 13 g / t
SIPX and in total 8 minute longer flotation

Figure 40. Adjusted bulk flotation flowsheet for increase of collector dosage trial

Sphalerite recovery changes after this test are shown in Figure 41. The results are very similar to
the ones with longer grinding times. With higher collector dosage no significant change in
sphalerite recovery can be observed for Borta Bakom and Savsjon but for Mellanby there is a
significant increase. Again the final sphalerite recovery value for Mellanby is still far from being
satisfactory with 71%. Additionally, higher collector usage would cause stronger bonds of
sphalerite-xanthate which may cause problems in separation flotation stage where sphalerite should
be depressed. Therefore, higher collector usage should be studied further before applying it in full
scale process.

56

Standard Test vs. Increased Collector Test for Sph Rec

100.00%

90.00%

88.23% 88.16%

90.69% 89.67%

80.00%

71.11%

Sph Rec

70.00%

62.27%

60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Borta Bakom

Savsjon

Mellanby

Orebody
Initial Test

Increase Collector

Figure 41. Standard test vs. increased collector test results fro sph recovery

c. Sphalerite activator usage with copper sulfate (CuSO 4 )

Lastly, considering that the problem with sphalerite recovery is related to the activation of the
mineral; CuSO4 was used as an additional activator. These tests also quantify the magnitude of zinc
oxides, in Savsjon and Mellanby, because zinc oxides are not expected to float even with the CuSO4
activation.
The base flowsheet (Figure 40) was kept the same except the modification of 30 g /t CuSO4 addition
in the last three conditioning stages. Sphalerite recovery comparison of these tests can be seen in
Figure 42. CuSO4 activation improves sphalerite recovery significantly for all orebody samples.
These results verify that the main problem for unsatisfactory sphalerite recovery is poor activation
in standard conditions. Losses remaining are of same magnitude as for the Reference in standard
conditions and can be due to presence of zinc oxides and liberation.
Despite the highly satisfactory results, usage of CuSO4 in the plant potentially makes sphalerite
depression more difficult in galena-sphalerite separation. Therefore, further studies should be made
in order to detect separation conditions of sphalerite and galena before activator application is
chosen.

57

Standard Test vs. CuSO4 Usage Test for Sph Rec

100.00%
90.00%

98.49%

98.44%

98.32%

90.69%

88.23%

80.00%

Sph Rec

70.00%

62.27%

60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Borta Bakom

Savsjon

Mellanby

Orebody
Initial Test

CuSO4

Figure 42. Standard test vs. CuSO4 test results fro sph recovery

4.5 Kinetic Modeling and Simulation

4.5.1 Kinetic Models
i.

Kinetic Model Fitting Procedure

In the modeling of flotation kinetics with the floatability component approach, each mineral is
divided to fast, slow and non-floating fraction (See Eq.2, 3). The model fitting can be done in
various ways due to flexibility on this mathematical model. To illustrate this phenomena and to
study different alternatives, three different ways were examined (Table 18, Figure 43). In each of
them the mass proportion of fast, slow and non-floating were fixed and kfast and kslow were searched
by model fitting.
Table 18. Sphalerite experimental cumulative sphalerite recovery results and different kinetic model properties
Measurements
Time (min)
Sph Cum Rec
37.69%
0.5
57.03%
1
74.97%
2
88.10%
4
95.91%
8
98.24%
16

Kinetic Components
m Fast
m Slow
m non-float
k Fast
k Slow

58

Kinetic Fit 1
55.00%
43.00%
2.00%
1.609
0.366

Kinetic Fit 2
70.00%
28.00%
2.00%
1.305
0.268

Kinetic Fit 3
40.00%
58.00%
2.00%
2.087
0.465

Reference Sphalerite Kinetic Models

100.00%

90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
0.00

2.00

4.00

Measured Sph Cum Rec

6.00

8.00
Kinetic Fit 1

10.00

12.00
Kinetic Fit 2

14.00

16.00

18.00

Kinetic Fit 3

Figure 43. Reference sphalerite mineral kinetic models

Despite the fixed mass proportions (m values of fast slow and non-floating) equally satisfactory
fits could be achieved. This shows that, even being very handy with this flexibility, the method
cannot give unambiguous values for floatability components. Even application of these parameters
in modeling would give identical results in rougher-scavenger flotation the result would be
different in the cleaning stage. Therefore, more information or some constraints, e.g. from
mineralogy, are needed for unambiguous parameter search by model fitting.
However, this is not an easy task due to the complex nature of flotation. There are many parameters
which play a role on the flotation kinetics of a mineral, such as degree of liberation, chemical
composition of the mineral, grain sizes and in this case with bulk flotation even the binaries with
other target mineral may be highly effective on particular minerals floatability kinetics. Therefore,
in order not to be biased between different orebody samples, it was decided to assign the fast
floating mass component of different minerals based on the recovery after one minute flotation
time.
i.

Kinetic Properties for Bulk Flotation

Table 19 gives the kinetic parameters for sphalerite and galena. The fast+slow floating mass
fractions for sphalerite equal to the ultimate recovery and the biggest difference is in the mass
proportion of non-floating fraction which reflects the mass proportion of sphalerite difficult to
activate. The kinetic constants (k fast and k slow) dont differ significantly between the samples.

59

Table 19. Kinetic Properties of Orebody samples

Kinetic
Properties
m fast
m slow
m non-float
k fast
k slow

Reference
Sphalerite
57.00%
41.50%
1.50%
1.572
0.343

Borta Bakom

Galena
62.00%
33.18%
4.82%
2.211
0.285

Sphalerite
47.00%
40.20%
12.80%
1.461
0.293

Galena
64.00%
27.67%
8.33%
2.047
0.379

Savsjon
Sphalerite
48.00%
43.34%
8.66%
1.743
0.217

Mellanby
Galena
72.00%
24.97%
3.03%
2.355
0.433

Sphalerite
26.40%
37.50%
36.10%
1.411
0.189

Galena
60.00%
30.00%
10.00%
2.014
0.334

For galena properties of mass and kinetic components are very similar for especially Reference,
Borta Bakom and Mellanby samples. Savsjon has slightly faster kinetics comparing with the other
orebody samples which was not expected from degree of liberation analysis. All the kinetic model
and properties can be seen in Appendix 4.4.
ii.

Zinc-Lead Separation Flotation Kinetics

The initial study plan was to determine separation kinetic conditions for all orebody samples as
well in order to make a complete plant simulation and forecast. However, this plan was changed
after receiving unexpected results from bulk flotation for new orebody samples. For the Reference,
separation kinetics test was made on collected plant samples.
The kinetic property changes are given in Table 20. The use of depressant (Sodium Bisulfite) in
the separation stage caused big change in both sphalerite and galena kinetics. Sphalerite becomes
mostly non-floating with much slower kinetics whereas galena is mainly fast. About 8% of galena
also remains non-floating and this is believed to be due to sphalerite binaries.
Table 20. Kinetic Properties of Plant Samples in Bulk and Separation Flotation

Kinetic Properties
m fast
m slow
m non-float
k fast
k slow

Bulk Flotation Sample 1102

Sphalerite
57.00%
41.50%
1.50%
1.696
0.487

Galena
62.00%
33.18%
4.82%
2.291
0.412

Separation Flotation Sample 3102

Sphalerite
4.58%
30.42%
65.00%
0.142
0.142

Galena
30.40%
61.40%
8.20%
0.438
0.360

4.5.2 Verification of Kinetic Results

Verification of kinetic modelling was made by introducing the determined kinetic properties to the
simulation and making a comparison between simulated and actual recoveries individually for
sphalerite and galena. Results are highly correlated verifying that the model fitting was correctly
done (Figure 44). Complete results and plots for new orebody samples can be seen in Appendix
4.5.

60

Reference Experimental vs Kinetic Model Cum Recovery

100.00%
R = 0.9999
Cum Sph Rec

Experimetnal Mineral Cum Rec

90.00%
80.00%
R = 0.997

Cum Gn Rec

70.00%
60.00%

Linear (Cum
Sph Rec)

50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
30.00%

Linear (Cum
Gn Rec)
40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

Kinetic Model Simulation Mineral Cum Rec

Figure 44. Reference experimental and kinetic model simulation results comparison for cumulative mineral recoveries

4.5.3 Current Plant Simulation (Reference)

Using the flotation test results of collected plant samples and relative kinetic models a plant
simulation was made by using two separate kinetic property set for bulk flotation and separation
flotation(Table 19 and 20).
A comparison of zinc recoveries between the actual plant result (mass balance) and simulation
results is shown Figure 45. Full tables of comparison and results with corresponding flowsheet can
be seen in Appendix 4.6.
Additional collector usage in the laboratory tests for scavenger flotation increased the sphalerite
recovery in rougher - scavenger flotation. Therefore, simulation gives slightly higher recovery for
sphalerite into the cleaned bulk concentrate. However, when the full results of grades and
distribution is examined it can be seen that the simulation results fit reasonably well with the plant
values to the (cleaned) bulk concentrate. Therefore it can be concluded that the conservation of
kinetics can be applied along bulk rougher, scavenger and bulk cleaner flotation stages.

61

Mass Balance - 2 Kinetic Model Sim Comparison for Feed, Bulk and Final Conc
100.0%

Mineral Recovery %

95.0%

90.0%

85.0%

80.0%

75.0%

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Mineral Grade %
Sph MasBal

Sph Sim

Gn MasBal

Gn Sim

Figure 45.Comparison between mass balance and 2 kinetic property simulation results for feed, bulk and final conc grade and
recoveries for Reference

The simulation results show poorer fit in Zn-Pb separation and Pb cleaning. In initially created
open circuit simulation, zinc concentrate grade and recoveries were fitting well with the plant
results. However, when the circuit was closed with the lead cleaning stage it was found that too
much sphalerite ends into the lead cleaner concentrate. This is due to two main reasons. Firstly,
additional depressant is used in the lead cleaning stage changing the kinetics of the minerals.
Therefore, mineral kinetics on lead cleaning stage should also be determined. Secondly, JELE
flotation unit at the end of lead cleaning stage is believed to have different unit specific kinetic
properties than the other flotation units. Further studies for lead cleaning flotation kinetics should
also be made by considering these findings.
Since fitting results could not be taken for separation flotation stage due to explained reasons, (by
conservation in separation kinetics assumptions) this part of the simulation was reorganized with a
mineral splitter unit in HSC Sim software. The split values were taken from the constructed plant
mass balance. Galena and sphalerite grade-recovery curves after the application of this method are
given in Figure 46.
Using mineral splitter in the separation stage gives better matching results. The mineral split
parameters of this stage is also applied to the orebody samples with the assumption that flotation
kinetics in Zn-Pb separation and cleaning stage are similar with all the orebody samples.

62

Mass Balance - Mineral Splitter Sim Comparison for Feed, Bulk and Final Conc
100.0%

Mineral Recovery %

95.0%

90.0%

85.0%

80.0%

75.0%

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Mineral Grade %
Sph MasBal

Sph Sim

Gn MasBal

Gn Sim

Figure 46. Mass balance mineral splitter simulation comparison for feed, bulk and final concentrate recovery and grades for
Reference

4.5.4 Simulation & Production Forecast for New Orebody Samples

i.

Bulk Concentrate Simulation & Forecast

In order to make a comparison between orebody samples based on the simulation results two major
parameters are considered individually. First important parameter to compare is the recovery values
for the total solids, sphalerite and galena in bulk concentrate for a continuous circuit (Figure 47).
Differences in solid recoveries are mainly due to differences in the head grade. However, correlated
with the batch flotation results given in section 4.1.1 Bulk Rougher-Scavenger Flotation; major
differences between mineral recoveries, especially for sphalerite mineral, also exist for the new
orebody samples which effects solid recovery values as well.
According to the forecast by using the closed circuit simulation results; sphalerite mineral
collection will be challenging for all the new orebody samples; especially for Mellanby. The low
recovery of zinc is mainly due to the activation problem of sphalerite.

63

Total Solid, Sphalerite and Galena Recoveries

100.00%

97.00%

96.60%

93.00%

90.00%

90.99%

88.82%
84.77%

84.76%

80.00%
70.00%
55.63%

60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%

21.22%

19.20%
12.56%

8.66%

10.00%
0.00%
Reference

Borta Bakom

Solid Rec

Savsjon

Sphalerite Rec

Mellanby

Galena Rec

Figure 47. Total solid, shalerite and galena recoveries for all orebody samples

Second important parameter to be examined by forecast and to compare is the quality of bulk
concentrate. Collected gangue minerals up to the cleaned bulk concentrate cannot be returned to
tailings. Therefore, examination of grades of the bulk concentrate is critical.
In the Figure 48 a comparison between all orebody samples for sphalerite, galena and gangue
content is made. The cleaned bulk concentrate of the Reference contains less than 5 % gangue
minerals. However, for Mellanby, Borta Bakom and Savsjon, gangue contents of the bulk
concentrate are much higher than in the Reference. For Savsjon some increase was expected
considering the higher content of iron sulphide which also floats with the target minerals.
Additionally, lower liberation degree of galena in Savsjon sample can be an additional reason for
this result.
For Borta Bakom and Mellanby, considering similar liberation degree and mineral assemblage with
the Reference, this type of dirty bulk concentrate was unexpected. This may be due to analysis
problems with these orebody samples and overestimation of the gangue grade (Table 16).

64

Bulk Concentrate Contents

80.00%

72.59%

71.00%

70.71%

66.42%

70.00%

60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
22.18%

20.65%

18.67%

20.00%
12.67%
10.00%

9.55%

17.75%
11.02%

4.67%

0.00%
Reference

Borta Bakom
Sphalerite %

Savsjon
Galena %

Mellanby

Gangue %

Figure 48. Bulk concentrate contents for all orebody samples

ii.

Full Circuit Simulation & Forecast by Same Separation Condition Assumption

Simulated grades and recoveries for zinc full circuit simulation with the assumption of same
separation conditions on all orebody samples are given in Figure 49. Simulation results show lower
recovery and grade values for the new orebody samples compared to the Reference. The most
significant recovery problem is with Mellanby. Also the zinc grade of the final concentrate is lower
than the Reference due to lower zinc (and higher iron) content of sphalerite in Mellanby and higher
gangue response to final concentrate.
Savsjon and Borta Bakom show zinc recoveries between the Reference and Mellanby, but the zinc
grade is also significantly lower, with about 50%. Explanation of this for Savsjon is high iron
content of sphalerite and significantly higher content of iron sulphide that are carried as gangue
minerals into the final concentrate. Complete results are given in Appendix 4.7.

65

Figure 49. Grade- recovery plot of zinc for all orebody samples

Low zinc grade in Borta Bakom cannot be related to iron content of sphalerite, modal mineralogy
or liberation distribution since they are all very similar with the Reference. Entrainment cannot
also explain the problem since, particle size, unit properties and flotation procedure were kept very
similar for all experiments and Reference does not show such a result. Therefore, it is believed that
an analysis problem with too low zinc and lead grades in some flotation products causing thus
overestimation of non-sulphide gangue for Borta Bakom is the reason. Therefore, Borta Bakom
should be furtherly examined. If the prediction about chemical analysis problem is correct an
increase in sphalerite recovery also can be expected.
Simulated grade recovery curves for lead are shown in Figure 50. Unlike the results for zinc
element, lead recovery and grades does not show significant difference. In general, recovery seems
to be correlating with the head grade. Previous studies show that head grade and recovery have a
positive correlation (Neethling & Cilliers 2012) and for galena flotation of different orebody
samples of Zinkgruvan that is believed to be the case.
Savsjon shows the highest recovery but slight lead content decreases in bulk and final concentrates
were also observed which is correlated with the lower liberation conditions of Savsjon and floated
galena-gangue binaries. Mellanby shows the lowest recovery also for lead. The reason for this
recovery decrease is believed to be also due to the locked galena particles with sphalerite. Since a
large amount of sphalerite cannot be collected in Mellanby possible locked galena particles may
also lost into tailings with sphalerite.

66

Figure 50. Grade- Recovery curve of lead for orebody samples

4.6 Geometallurgical Characterization of Zinkgruvan Ore Floatability

According to the results and knowledge gained throughout the study, a geometallurgical
characterization method of floatability for particularly Zinkgruvan type lead zinc sulphide ores is
proposed. Objective to create such a method is to make production forecast on upcoming new
orebodies of the deposit and gain important indications in a fast, cheap and reproducible way.
4.6.1 Recipe
Proposed recipe of flotation experiment can be seen in Figure 51 below. First, collected
representative samples are crushed under 3.35 mm size and split into approximately 1 kg bags.
Experiment starts with 10 minute grinding in stainless steel rod mill with 60 % solid conditions.
Ground pulp is washed down to 2.5 liter Wemco cell and first conditioning (Con_1) is made by
regulation of pH to 8.00, addition of 25 g / t freshly prepared SIPX and 30-40 g / t Nasfroth in this
order for 5 minutes. Initial flotation stage, which can be called standard plant condition and kinetics
(PC_K), is continued for 14-15 minutes in total. Concentrate is collected with 15 second intervals
by appropriate froth paddle and 6 concentrate samples are collected during this first stage of
flotation with suggested periods. It is also suggested to use frother added water for necessary water
additions in order to preserve stable froth conditions for 15 minutes.

67

Figure 51. Proposed flotation experimental recipe for geometallurgical characterization of Zinkgruvan ore type floatability

In the second stage of flotation, another 5 minute conditioning is made by regulation of pH addition
of SIPX and Nasfroth similar with first conditioning stage (pH = 8.0, 13 g / t SIPX and 30 g / t
Nasfroth). This stage, so called higher collector dosage flotation (HCDF), is continued for 6 to 8
minutes. One concentrate sample is collected and remaining tail is vacuumed and prepared for
regrinding with 40-50 % solid conditions.
Regrinding continues with third conditioning for longer grinding time flotation (LGTF) stage.
Same conditioning as in the second stage are used and flotation continues for 6 to 8 minutes; one
concentrate sample is collected.
In the last stage of experiment, which is called activator used flotation (AcUsF), conditioning starts
by addition of 30 g / t CuSO4. Following this procedure, 13 g / t SIPX and 30 g /t Nasfroth is added.
Again a 6 to 8 minute flotation is made and one last concentrate is collected.
All 10 products (including final tailings) of experiment are dried and prepared for chemical
analysis.
4.6.2 Result Analysis
After the chemical analyses of the 10 samples are acquired, a back calculation of the feed sample
is made and the results should be compared with initial feed analysis. Element mineral conversion
is made and cumulative recovery of minerals for the first 6 concentrate samples is determined.
According to the results taken from Reference during the studies, calculated cumulative recovery
of these samples should be 90 to 95 % for both galena and sphalerite. Kinetic modeling with three
components approach is made by fixing 1 minute cumulative recovery value to correspond the
mass proportion of the fast floating fraction and unrecovered portion as non-floating fraction.
Following this procedure simulation and forecast for current plant conditions can be made.
68

In the cases of over 90 % recovery could not be achieved by first 6 concentrate samples, next
flotation stage recoveries should be examined. If further collection is observed in the second stage
(HCDF), collector starvation is the most probable reason for poor recovery.
If around 95 % recovery could not achieved still by addition of 7th concentrate, but the next flotation
stage (LGTF) shows increase in recovery then the problem relates to poor liberation .
Lastly, in the cases of first 8th concentrate samples does not cover 95 % of galena and sphalerite
and the 9th concentrate shows significant increase in recovery then additional activation is needed.
If recoveries are still low, then the orebody sample has zinc oxides.
This test can be simplified in order to decrease the concentrate collection numbers. This can be
done by collecting one sample instead of first 6 samples. Therefore, collection of five sample
instead of ten can be made if kinetics and simulation for production forecast is not planned to be
made.

4.7 QA / QC results
As it was explained previously quality assurance and quality control of study and experiments were
made for two major topics of flotation feed product sampling and flotation tests.
4.7.1 Sampling
Results of the chosen sampling QA / QC results are presented in Table 21 and spider charts below.
(Figure 52) Standard error of the mean of zinc for product sampling and feed sampling over
orebody samples are 0.07 and 0.08 respectively and can be considered satisfactory. For lead,
standard error values are even smaller with 0.01 for both product and feed sampling.
Table 21. QAQC Sampling Results
Sample

Zn

Pb

M-T2-1
M-T2-2

7.29

1.76

7.16

1.74

M-T2-3

7.39

1.78

M-T1-1

7.13

1.74

M-T3-1

7.41

1.79

St Err. 1

0.07

0.01

St Err. 2

0.08

0.01
Figure 52. Spider Charts for sampling results

4.7.2 Flotation test repeats

In order to validate the flotation test uniformity Savsjon was chosen and two repeats were made on
bulk rougher scavenger kinetics tests. Chemical analysis results for zinc and lead elements of all
three tests and related modeled kinetic properties are introduced in Table 22 below. The results are
highly correlated with each other for galena whereas for sphalerite some extent of variance is
observed.

69

Table 22. Chemical analysis results and kinetic properties for Savsjon repeats
Zn %

Pb %

Product
ST7

ST5

ST8

ST7

ST5

ST8

C1

37.0

36.3

35.0

21.2

21.3

C2

38.2

40.2

38.4

14.1

13.5

C3

35.7

39.7

35.1

11.2

12.5

Savsjon 7 - Main test

Savsjon 5 - Repeat 1

Savsjon 8 - Repeat 2

21.2

Kinetic
Property

Sphalerite

Galena

Sphalerite

Galena

Sphalerite

Galena

15.2

m fast

48.00%

72.00%

51.00%

74.00%

46.00%

73.00%

10.2

m slow

43.34%

24.97%

43.24%

23.08%

43.28%

24.06%

8.66%

3.03%

5.76%

2.92%

10.72%

2.93%

C4

25.3

32.5

25.5

5.6

5.8

5.8

m nonfloat

C5

22.6

17.4

13.8

1.8

1.8

1.8

k fast

1.743

2.355

1.789

2.630

1.783

2.492

C6

13.8

17.2

14.4

1.0

0.8

0.9

k slow

0.217

0.433

0.214

0.397

0.210

0.411

1.5

0.9

1.8

0.2

0.2

0.2

For these repeat tests, same procedure with other tests was applied on HSC. 7.1 Sim module and
the results can be seen in recovery grade curves in Figure 53. For lead the repeats gave almost
identical results. For the final zinc concentrate the repeats and corresponding modeling and
simulation gave 1.25 % variation in the zinc grade and 2.5 % in zinc recovery. This variance
can also be applied to other orebody samples and similar composite error can be expected for their
results.

Figure 53. Savsjon repeats grade-recovery variance for Zn and Pb

5. Discussions
i.

Iron content of sphalerite

Differences in iron content of sphalerite for varying orebody samples were detected. Some studies
show that increased iron content of sphalerite causes activation problem. However, a direct
correlation could not be made for varying iron content against activation. On the other hand, it is
clear that higher iron content of sphalerite would cause the problem of lower quality zinc
concentrate. For all new orebody samples a decrease in final zinc concentrate was forecasted.
However, this issue is believed to be mainly due to gangue collection to concentrates for new
70

orebody samples instead of iron content differences in orebodies (see gangue collection values in
Figure 48).
ii.

Modal mineralogy

Significant differences for both valuable and gangue mineral composition were found between
orebody samples. In order to verify these results, representativeness of initial sampling, which was
made from the development galleries of Zinkgruvan, should be evaluated. A comparison of results
can be made by using the current knowledge of geology department and prepared block models.
iii.

Mineral liberation

Touching particle problem was faced with especially for finer size fractions. A use of fine carbon
can be a solution in order to avoid such a problem in further automated mineralogy applications.
As a side objective of the study a direct correlation was tried to be found between liberation degree
and flotation kinetics. According to the hypothesis on both minerals, fully liberated sphalerite and
galena, galena- sphalerite binaries would correspond to fast floating fraction whereas galenagangue and sphalerite-gangue binaries and possible more complex particles correspond to slow
floating or non-floating mass proportion depending on valuable-gangue ratio in the particle. Nonfloating mineral fraction that can also be defined as losses are expected to be the particles which
has very low ratio or locked valuable mineral grains in gangue minerals. (Figure 54).

Figure 54. A) Fully liberated sphalerite, B) Sphalerite- Galena Binary, C) Sphalerite- Gangue Binary

Such a correlation could not be observed in this study. Especially for sphalerite, it is seen that there
are other parameters more effective than the liberation degree on floatability, such as modal
mineralogy of the ore, pulp chemistry or grain sizes and collision efficiency. Therefore, the
hypothesis of direct correlation of liberation degree with floatability is rejected for Zinkgruvan ore
type.
iv.

Flotation

An unusual application on zinc-lead sulphide ore beneficiation in Zinkgruvan is made by avoiding

activator usage (CuSO4) for sphalerite. For this study the experimental setup was also built
according to that application. The reason why Zinkgruvan does not need activator usage for
71

sphalerite was explained in 2.2 Zinc-Lead Sulphide Flotation as AG mill utilization and low grade
of iron minerals in their typical ores, represented by the Reference.
However, this study shows the poor activation problem of sphalerite which is expected to be faced
with due to higher Fe mineral abundance in the new orebodies and causing large recovery decrease
for zinc. Adjusted bulk flotation laboratory tests by the usage of CuSO4 showed that activation is
the major problem and recovery can be increased to desired level (+95 %).
On the other hand, since Zinkgruvan applies bulk flotation of galena and sphalerite followed by
selective flotation where sphalerite should be depressed, activator usage could lead to further
problems in secondary flotation stage while fixing the first one. Therefore, before choosing this
application, some other options, such as blending of different orebodies, prior aeration of the pulp,
prior magnetic separation for the removal of monoclinic pyrrhotite and magnetite minerals etc.
should be tried. If none of these options could give satisfactory results, CuSO4 usage should be
used by conducting additional analysis on separation conditions.
As the last possible option, a change in the flowsheet can be done by replacing bulk flotation of
sphalerite and galena with two stage selective flotation of galena and sphalerite, respectively.
Despite the fact that this option would solve the beneficiation problem in the plant it is
recommended as the last option since it would need much investment and prior laboratory and pilot
studies.
v.

Use of Modeling and Simulation

Considering produced sample to be analyzed, it may be thought that instead of conducting

floatation kinetics experiments, which are more burdensome and costly, simple batch flotation tests
would give adequate indications on floatability of minerals. But, without kinetic tests with multiple
timed concentrates, it is very difficult to have full picture of flotation performance and thus some
of the problems, like slow kinetics and poor separation efficiency, could be overlooked.
Additionally, modeling and simulation cannot be done without proper kinetic tests.
Simulation is very beneficial for many reasons. A reliable simulation can give much more
information than a simple batch flotation test such as intermediate streams of different unit
products, recirculating loads. Hence a continuous plant forecast can be made by using simulation
tools. Simulation can also provide the flexibility of changing parameters for a particular flowsheet
and orebody. Forecasts can be made not only with fixed floatation parameters but also with the
varying parameters of residence times, throughputs, head grades etc. for an already modeled
orebody. Consequently, simulation was found to be more beneficial for these reasons and therefore,
chosen to be recommended in similar studies like this.

6. Conclusions
General conclusions for entire study are presented below.
Degree of liberation was found to be similar for both sphalerite and galena in different
orebody samples except slight variances.
o Mellanby has slightly worse degree of liberation for sphalerite
72

o Savsjon has slightly worse degree of liberation for galena

o Borta Bakom and Mellanby has significantly less sphalerite-galena binaries
Despite this similarity in liberation degree, very different results were received in flotation
tests, especially for sphalerite.
o Second hypothesis of production forecasting depending on liberation analysis is
rejected since mineralogical study with liberation analysis is not enough to forecast
the flotation behavior. At least a kinetic laboratory flotation test is needed for
production forecast.
Iron content of sphalerite is higher in samples from the new orebody samples than in the
Reference; especially in Savsjon and Mellanby the difference is significant.
Important modal mineralogical differences for new orebody samples comparing with
Reference are as follows;
o Savsjon has significantly high Iron sulphide grade (mostly Pyrrhotite )
o Mellanby has significantly high Iron oxide grade (mostly magnetite )
o Borta Bakom and Mellanby have slightly high Iron sulphide content
o Borta Bakom has low content of carbonate minerals
o Savsjon has significantly lower quartz grade
o Gahnite (ZnAl4O2) is found as trace amounts in Savsjon and Mellanby
Mellanby had very low recovery of zinc in the batch flotation in standard conditions
applied currently in Zinkgruvan. This is mainly due to sphalerite activation problem due
to one or several of the following reasons;
o Higher iron content of sphalerite
o Low galena content in the ore (i.e. less heavy lead ion release in AG grinding)
o Undesired pulp chemistry due to significantly high magnetite content
Savsjon did not give satisfactory flotation bulk performance because of sphalerite
activation problem:
o Higher iron content of sphalerite
o Undesired pulp chemistry due to significantly higher pyrrhotite content
Borta Bakom did not give satisfactory flotation bulk performance and this is mainly because
of sphalerite activation problem, which is due to one or several of the following reasons;
o Slightly higher pyrrhotite content
o Slightly higher iron content in sphalerite
o Significantly less binary galena-sphalerite particles
All new orebody samples with ultimate sphalerite recoveries reached to satisfactory levels
(<95 %) by using CuSO4 as an extra activator.
o This verifies that the reason for unsatisfactory zinc recovery is due to sphalerite
activation problem.
Finer grinding and higher collector usage adjustments did not create any positive effect on
Savsjon and Borta Bakom. However, it increased sphalerite recovery for Mellanby.
A geometallurgical flotation test method for Zinkgruvan type ore was developed. The
purpose of the test is to make production forecast in a fast, cheap and reproducible way for
upcoming orebodies.

73

7. Recommendations
Recommendations for the incomplete and future work are presented below.
Reconciliation of initial sampling should be made by comparing elemental and
mineralogical findings with block models and general knowledge of geologists on
orebodies.
Sphalerite collection problem in bulk flotation stage should be fixed in order to reach
satisfactory recovery levels (>90 %).
Further experimental work, kinetic modeling and simulation should be done for separation
kinetics after fixing the collection of sphalerite problem in bulk flotation.
Geometallurgical testing should be verified and improved.

8. References
Ahmadi, R. & Shahsavari, S., 2009. Procedure for determination of ball Bond work index in the
commercial operations. Minerals Engineering, 22(1), pp.104106. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2008.04.008.
Anon, 2010. FLSmidth - Zinkgruvan Mining AB Lead-Zinc-Copper Concentrator Review,
Anon, Laser Diffraction. Available at: http://www.malvern.com/en/products/technology/laserdiffraction/ [Accessed April 9, 2015a].
Anon, Laser Diffraction Theory. Available at: http://particle.dk/methods-analyticallaboratory/particle-size-by-laser-diffraction/laser-diffraction-theory/ [Accessed April 16,
2015b].
Anon, Scanning Electron Microscopy & Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy. Available at:
http://www.surfgroup.be/semedx [Accessed April 16, 2015c].
Anon, X-Ray Fluorescence. Available at: http://www.portableas.com/index.php/technique/x-rayfluorescence/ [Accessed April 16, 2015d].
Bailey, C. et al., 2009. What Can Go Wrong in Comminution Circuit Design? , (October), pp.12
14.
Boulton, A., Fornasiero, D. & Ralston, J., 2001. Depression of iron sulphide flotation in zinc
roughers. Minerals Engineering, 14(9), pp.10671079.
Boulton, A., Fornasiero, D. & Ralston, J., 2005. Effect of iron content in sphalerite on flotation.
Minerals Engineering, 18, pp.11201122.
Burrows, D., Fandrich, R. & Gu, Y., 2007. Automated Mineralogy for Ore Characterisation and
Plant Optimisation. In Project Evaluation Conference 2007. Melbourne, Vic., pp. 179187.
74

Carrasco, P., Chils, J.-P. & Sguret, S., 2008. Additivity, metallurgical recovery, and grade. In
Geostats 2008.
Evans, A.M., 1987. An Introduction to Ore Geology, Blackwell Scientific Publication, Oxford,
UK.
Fandrich, R.G. et al., 2007. Modern SEM-based mineral liberation analysis. International Journal
of Mineral Processing, 84(1-4), pp.310320.
Finch, J. a., Nesset, J.E. & Acua, C., 2008. Role of frother on bubble production and behaviour in
flotation. Minerals Engineering, 21(12-14), pp.949957.
Gonzalez, R.M. et al., 2003. Analysis of geologic materials using Rietveld quantitative X-ray
diffraction. , 46(Figure 1), pp.204209.
Gorain, B.K., Franzidis, J.-P. & Manlapig, E.V., 1999. The empirical prediction of bubble surface
area flux in mechanical flotation cells from cell design and operating data. Minerals
Engineering, 12(3), pp.309322.
Hedstrom, P., Simeonov, A. & Malmstrom, L., 1989. The Zinkgruvan ore deposit, South-Central
Sweden: a Proterozoic, proximal Zn-Pb-Ag deposit in distal volcanic facies. Economic
Geology, 84, pp.12351261.
Lamberg, P. et al., 2013. Building a Geometallurgical Model in Iron Ores using a Mineralogical
Approach with Liberation Data. In The second AUSIMM international Geometallurgy
Conference, Brisbane, Qld, 30 September-2 October. pp. 317324.
Lamberg, P. & Rosenkranz, J., 2014. Systematic Diagnosis of Flotation Circuit Performance Based
On Process Mineralogical Methods. , pp.417423.
Lamberg, P. & Vianna, S., 2007. A technique for tracking multiphase mineral particles in flotation
circuits. Meeting of the Southern Hemisphere on Mineral , (November).
Laskowski, J.S., Liu, Q. & Zhan, Y., 1997. Sphalerite activation: Flotation and electrokinetic
studies. Minerals Engineering, 10(8), pp.787802.
Liipo, J. et al., 2012. Automated mineral liberation analysis using INCAMineral. In Process
Mineralogy 2012. Cape Town, pp. 17.
Liipo, J., 2011. Liberation of main minerals in Zinkgruvan Zinc and Lead Concentrates with
emphasis on the mode of occurrence of silicates in Zinc Concentrate,
Liipo, J. & Lamberg, P., 2005. Process Mineralogy - Process Assessment for Zinkgruvan Mining
AB,

75

Lishchuk, V., Lamberg, P. & Lund, C., 2015. Classification of geometallurgical programs based
on approach and purpose. SGA 2015.
Lund, C., 2013. Mineralogical, Chemical and Textural Characterisation of the Malmberget Iron
Ore Deposit for a Geometallurgical Model. Lulea University of Technology, pp.1190.
Lund, C., Lamberg, P. & Lindberg, T., 2013. Practical way to quantify minerals from chemical
assays at Malmberget iron ore operations An important tool for the geometallurgical
program. Minerals Engineering, 49, pp.716.
Macas-Garca, A., Cuerda-Correa, E.M. & Daz-Dez, M.A., 2004. Application of the RosinRammler and Gates-Gaudin-Schuhmann models to the particle size distribution analysis of
agglomerated cork. Materials Characterization, 52(2), pp.159164.
Malmstrm, L., Hedstrm, P. & Syme, D., 2009. Mineral Reserves and Mineral Resources of the
Zinkgruvan Mine In South-Central Sweden,
Mwanga, A., 2014. Test Methods for Characterising Ore Comminution Behavior in
Geometallurgy,
Mwanga, A., Rosenkranz, J. & Lamberg, P., 2014. Developing Ore Comminution Test Methods in
the Geometallurgical Context. Conference in Minerals .
Neethling, S.J. & Cilliers, J.J., 2012. Grade-recovery curves: A new approach for analysis of and
predicting from plant data. Minerals Engineering, 36-38, pp.105110. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2012.02.018.
Niiranen, K. & Bhm, A., 2012. A Systematic Characterization Of The Ore Body For Mineral
Processing At Kiirunavaara Iron Ore Mine Operated By Lkab In Kiruna , Northern Sweden.
Impc 2012, (1039), Pp.38553864.
Niiranen, K. & Fredriksson, A., 2007. A Systematic Approach Of Geometallurgical Mapping Of
The Kiirunavaara Iron Ore.
Owen, M. & Meyer, L., 2013. LUNDIN MINING NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Zinkgruvan
Mine, Central Sweden January 2013,
Palsson, B., 2014. Flotation theory. In Mineral Processing Compendium. Lulea University of
Technology.
Palsson, B., 2013. Treatment of lead - zinc ores. In Mineral Processing Compendium. Lulea
University of Technology.
Parian, M., 2015. Development of the Mineralogical Path for Geometallurgical Modeling of Iron
Ores Mehdi Parian.

76

Parian, M. & Lamberg, P., 2013. Combining chemical analysis ( XRF ) and quantitative X-ray
diffraction (Rietveld) in modal analysis of for iron ores for geometallurgical purposes in
Northern Sweden. In SGA 2013. pp. 356359.
Runge, K., 2010. Laboratory Flotation Testing - An Essential Tool for Ore Characterization. In
Flotation Plant Optimization. AusIMM, pp. 155173.
Runge, K. & Franzidis, J., 2003. Structuring a flotation model for robust prediction of flotation
circuit performance. Proceedings XXII , (October), pp.973984.
Runge, K.C. et al., 1997. Floatability of streams around the Cominco Red Dog lead cleaning circuit.
Splaine, M., Browner, M.A. & Dohm, C.E., 1982. The Effect of Head Grade on Recovery
Efficiency in a Gold-Reduction Plant. J.S. Afr. Inst. Min. Metall., 82(1), pp.611.
Sutherland, D.N. & Gottlieb, P., 1991. Application of automated quantitative mineralogy in
mineral processing. Minerals Engineering, 4(7-11), pp.753762.
Wang, L. et al., 2015. A review of entrainment: Mechanisms, contributing factors and modelling
in
flotation.
Minerals
Engineering,
70,
pp.7791.
Available
at:
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0892687514003045.
Welsby, S.D.D., Vianna, S.M.S.M. & Franzidis, J.P., 2010. Assigning physical significance to
floatability components. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 97, pp.5967.
Whiten, B., 2007. Calculation of Mineral Composition From Chemical Assays. Mineral
Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review, 29(2), pp.8397.
Wills, B.A. & Nappier-Munn, T.J., 2006. Froth flotation. In Wills Mineral Processing Technology.
pp. 267352.
Wills, B.A.. & Napier-Munn, T., 2005. Mineral Processing Technology, Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B85NM-4PN0BCW2/2/c72e67562c4476d7272f679a2e7a64d7.
Wobrauschek, P., 2007. Total Reflection X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis - a review. X-Ray
Spectrometry, 36(August), pp.2734. Available at: <Go to ISI>://000244086800005.

9. Appendices

77

Appendix 1. Samples
Sample Name

Mass (g)

Description

Origin

Use

290115_Z_P_1102

1173.40

AG Mill Circuit OF

Process Plant

PSD and Chem. analysis

290115_Z_P_2102

1359.50

Bulk Cleaner Flotation Feed

Process Plant

PSD and Chem. analysis

290115_Z_P_3102

826.30

Separation Flotation Feed

Process Plant

PSD and Chem. analysis

290115_Z_P_4102

960.40

Lead Cleaner Flotation Feed

Process Plant

PSD and Chem. analysis

290115_Z_P_5202

2002.50

Ground Bulk Rougher Feed

Process Plant

PSD and Chem. analysis

290115_Z_P_7101

125.90

Zinc Concentrate

Process Plant

PSD and Chem. analysis

290115_Z_P_8101

361.60

Lead Concentrate

Process Plant

PSD and Chem. analysis

230215_Z_M_B1

1680.00

Uncrushed back up sample

Mellanby 1/3

Remaining Samples in LTU

230215_Z_BB_B1

1500.00

Uncrushed back up sample

Borta bakom 1/3

Remaining Samples in LTU

230215_Z_S_B1

1250.00

Uncrushed back up sample

Svsjn 1/3

Remaining Samples in LTU

Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed
Reference-Plant AG
Mill Feed

240215_Z_R_CB

30000.00

Crushed Backup Sample

240215_Z_R_T1

988.00

Crushed Test Sample

240215_Z_R_T2

1016.5

Crushed Test Sample

240215_Z_R_T3

1005.30

Crushed Test Sample

240215_Z_R_T4

979.60

Crushed Test Sample

240215_Z_R_T5

991.40

Crushed Test Sample

240215_Z_R_T6

994.20

Crushed Test Sample

240215_Z_R_T7

1021.70

Crushed Test Sample

240215_Z_R_T8

970.80

Crushed Test Sample

240215_Z_R_T9

970.40

Crushed Test Sample

240215_Z_R_T10

971.40

Crushed Test Sample

150515_Z_R_T11

1010.60

Crushed Test Sample

150515_Z_R_T12

1000.70

Crushed Test Sample

150515_Z_R_T13

989.40

Crushed Test Sample

150515_Z_R_T14

982.50

Crushed Test Sample

150515_Z_R_T15

981.50

Crushed Test Sample

150515_Z_R_T16

967.80

Crushed Test Sample

150515_Z_R_T17

973.50

Crushed Test Sample

150515_Z_R_T18

868.80

Crushed Test Sample

250215_Z_M_B2

1460.00

Uncrushed back up sample

Mellanby 1/3

Remaining Samples in LTU

250215_Z_BB_B2

1700.00

Uncrushed back up sample

Borta bakom 1/3

Remaining Samples in LTU

250215_Z_S_CB

60000.00

Crushed Backup Sample

Svsjn

Remaining Samples in LTU

250215_Z_S_T1

1016.10

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Grindability Tests

250215_Z_S_T2

1007.50

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Grindability Tests

78

Remaining Samples in LTU

Grindability Tests
Grindability Tests
Grindability Tests
Dummy Flotation Tests
Dummy Flotation Tests
Dummy Flotation Tests
Dummy Flotation Tests
Rougher Kinetics Tests
Rougher Kinetics Tests
GCT BWI Tests
Batch Flotation Tests
Batch Flotation Tests
Remaining Samples in LTU
Remaining Samples in LTU
Remaining Samples in LTU
Remaining Samples in LTU
Remaining Samples in LTU
Remaining Samples in LTU

250215_Z_S_T3

1005.40

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Grindability Tests

250215_Z_S_T4

981.70

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Dummy Flotation Tests

250215_Z_S_T5

1005.00

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Rougher Kinetics Tests

250215_Z_S_T6

1010.70

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Batch Flotation Tests -Failed

250215_Z_S_T7

1012.70

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Rougher Kinetics Tests

250215_Z_S_T8

989.10

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Rougher Kinetics Tests

250215_Z_S_T9

984.60

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

GCT BWI Tests

250215_Z_S_T10

1042.20

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Batch Flotation Tests - Failed

250215_Z_S_T11

1009.70

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Batch Flotation Tests - Failed

250215_Z_S_T12

993.80

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Dummy Flotation Tests

250215_Z_S_T13

971.90

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Dummy Flotation Tests

250215_Z_S_T14

1020.20

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Dummy Flotation Tests

250215_Z_S_BOS

280.00

Crushing Oversize Sample

Svsjn

Remaining Samples in LTU

150515_Z_S_T15

1051.90

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Remaining Samples in LTU

150515_Z_S_T16

987.30

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Remaining Samples in LTU

150515_Z_S_T17

957.80

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Remaining Samples in LTU

150515_Z_S_T18

970.80

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Remaining Samples in LTU

150515_Z_S_T19

989.80

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Remaining Samples in LTU

150515_Z_S_T20

993.70

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

150515_Z_S_T21

995.70

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

150515_Z_S_T22

1013.60

Crushed Test Sample

Svsjn

Rougher Kinetics Tests -12 m

Grnd
Batch Flotation Tests , Collector
Dosage Test
Batch Flotation Tests , CuSO4
Test

260215_Z_M_CB

48000.00

Crushed Backup Sample

Mellanby

Remaining Samples in LTU

260215_Z_M_T1

1016.20

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Grindability Tests

260215_Z_M_T2

1000.10

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Grindability Tests

260215_Z_M_T3

1004.50

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Grindability Tests

260215_Z_M_T4

1005.10

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Rougher Kinetics Tests

260215_Z_M_T5

981.30

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Rougher Kinetics Tests

260215_Z_M_T6

1020.40

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Rougher Kinetics Tests

260215_Z_M_T7

979.30

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Rougher Kinetics Tests 12 m.

Grnd

260215_Z_M_T8

1005.80

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Remaining Samples in LTU

260215_Z_M_T9

1011.10

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Batch Flotation Tests , Collector

Dosage Test

260215_Z_M_T10

980.00

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

GCT BWI Tests

260215_Z_M_T11

998.20

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Remaining Samples in LTU

260215_Z_M_T12

1003.80

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Batch Flotation Tests, CuSO4

Test

260215_Z_M_T13

1008.80

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Remaining Samples in LTU

260215_Z_M_T14

990.90

Crushed Test Sample

Mellanby

Remaining Samples in LTU

260215_Z_M_BOS

420.00

Crushing Oversize Sample

Mellanby

Remaining Samples in LTU

270215_Z_BB_CB

51000.00

Crushed Backup Sample

Borta Bakom

Remaining Samples in LTU

270215_Z_BB_T1

1005.50

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Grindability Tests

270215_Z_BB_T2

1012.50

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Grindability Tests

79

270215_Z_BB_T3

1031.30

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Grindability Tests - Failed

270215_Z_BB_T4

1027.50

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Rougher Kinetics Tests

270215_Z_BB_T5

1067.60

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Batch Flotation Tests - Failed

270215_Z_BB_T6

1019.40

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Batch Flotation Tests - Failed

270215_Z_BB_T7

1023.80

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Batch Flotation Tests - Failed

270215_Z_BB_T8

1054.50

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

GCT BWI Tests

270215_Z_BB_T9

1039.00

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Batch Flotation Tests - Failed

270215_Z_BB_T10

1041.50

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Batch Flotation Tests - Failed

270215_Z_BB_T11

1048.70

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Batch Flotation Tests - Failed

270215_Z_BB_T12

1028.60

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Batch Flotation Tests - Failed

270215_Z_BB_T13

1085.40

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Batch Flotation Tests - Failed

270215_Z_BB_T14

1018.90

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Grindability Test

270215_Z_BB_BOS

385.00

Crushing Oversize Sample

Borta Bakom

Remaining Samples in LTU

150515_Z_BB_T15

983.50

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Remaining Samples in LTU

150515_Z_BB_T16

1055.20

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Remaining Samples in LTU

150515_Z_BB_T17

995.10

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Remaining Samples in LTU

150515_Z_BB_T18

1044.80

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Remaining Samples in LTU

150515_Z_BB_T19

1014.40

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

Remaining Samples in LTU

150515_Z_BB_T20

985.30

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

150515_Z_BB_T21

987.20

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

150515_Z_BB_T22

993.60

Crushed Test Sample

Borta Bakom

020315_Z_M_T2_F

115.00

020315_Z_BB_T2_F

110.00

020315_Z_R_T2_F

114.00

020315_Z_S_T2_F

115.00

030315_Z_M_T2_75_1
06
030315_Z_BB_T2_75_
106
030315_Z_R_T2_75_1
06
030315_Z_S_T2_75_10
6
050315_Z_M_T2_53_7
5
050315_Z_BB_T2_53_
75
050315_Z_R_T2_53_7
5
050315_Z_S_T2_53_75
090315_Z_M_T2_38_5
3
090315_Z_BB_T2_38_
53
090315_Z_R_T2_38_5
3
090315_Z_S_T2_38_53

2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50

10 min Ground-Sieved-Fractional Sample 6

Fractions
10 min Ground-Sieved-Fractional Sample 6
Fractions
10 min Ground-Sieved-Fractional Sample 6
Fractions
10 min Ground-Sieved-Fractional Sample 6
Fractions
Polished Section for SEM- Mellanby 75-106
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Borta Bakom 75106 micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Reference 75-106
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Savsjon 75-106
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Mellanby 53-75
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Borta Bakom 53-75
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Reference 53-75
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Savsjon 53-75
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Mellanby 38-53
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Borta Bakom 38-53
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Reference 38-53
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Savsjon 38-53
micron fraction

80

Batch Flotation Tests, Collector

Dosage Test
Rougher Kinetics Tests -12 m
Grnd
Batch Flotation Tests, CuSO4
Test

260215_Z_M_T2

Polished Sections

270215_Z_BB_T2

Polished Sections

240215_Z_R_T2

Polished Sections

250215_Z_S_T2

Polished Sections

200315_Z_M_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_BB_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_R_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_S_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_M_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_BB_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_R_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_S_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_M_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_BB_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_R_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_S_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

130315_Z_M_T2_20_3
8
130315_Z_BB_T2_20_
38
130315_Z_R_T2_20_3
8
130315_Z_S_T2_20_38
130315_Z_M_T2_106_
150
130315_Z_BB_T2_106
_150
130315_Z_R_T2_106_
150
130315_Z_S_T2_106_1
50

2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.50

150315_Z_P_1102_L

2.00

150315_Z_P_2102_L

2.00

150315_Z_P_3102_L

2.00

150315_Z_P_4102_L

2.00

150315_Z_P_5202_L

2.00

150315_Z_P_7101_L

2.00

150315_Z_P_8101_L

2.00

150315_Z_P_M_L

2.00

150315_Z_P_R_L

2.00

150315_Z_P_BB_L

2.00

150315_Z_P_S_L

2.00

Polished Section for SEM- Mellanby 20-38

micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Borta Bakom 20-38
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Reference 20-38
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Savsjon 20-38
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Mellanby 106-150
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Borta Bakom 106150 micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Reference 106-150
micron fraction
Polished Section for SEM- Savsjon 106-150
micron fraction
Laser Diffraction Sample for AG mill circuit
OF
Laser Diffraction Sample for Cleaner Feed
Laser Diffraction Sample for Separation
Flotation Feed
Laser Diffraction Sample for Lead cleaning
feed
Laser Diffraction Sample for Reground
Rougher Flotation Feed
Laser Diffraction Sample for Final Zinc
Concentrate
Laser Diffraction Sample for Final Lead
Concentrate
Laser Diffraction Sample for 10 min ground
Mellanby ore
Laser Diffraction Sample for 10 minute ground
reference ore
Laser Diffraction Sample for 10 minute ground
Borta Bakom ore
Laser Diffraction Sample for 10 minute ground
Savsjon ore

200315_Z_M_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_BB_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_R_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_S_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_M_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_BB_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_R_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

200315_Z_S_T2_F

SEM & Optical Microscopy A.

290115_Z_P_1102

Laser Diffraction

290115_Z_P_2102

Laser Diffraction

290115_Z_P_3102

Laser Diffraction

290115_Z_P_4102

Laser Diffraction

290115_Z_P_5202

Laser Diffraction

290115_Z_P_7101

Laser Diffraction

290115_Z_P_8101

Laser Diffraction

170315_Z_M_T2_B

Laser Diffraction

170315_Z_S_T2_B

Laser Diffraction

170315_Z_BB_T2_B

Laser Diffraction

170315_Z_R_T2_B

Laser Diffraction

Initial numbers of sample names represents the creation or collection dates.

Colored samples were used and the use of these samples can be seen in the 5th column.

81

Appendix 2. Plant section PSDs

i.

Wet Screening Results

Screen

Mean Size

3350

1102

5202

2102

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

3350

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

2380

2824

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1680

2000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1190

1414

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

840

1000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

595

707

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

425

503

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

297

355

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

212

251

1.35

1.19%

1.19%

98.81%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

150

178

7.25

6.38%

7.57%

92.43%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

106

126

12.26

10.79%

18.36%

81.64%

0.38

0.37%

0.37%

99.63%

1.16

1.08%

1.08%

98.92%

75

89

15.81

13.92%

32.28%

67.72%

4.39

4.24%

4.61%

95.39%

5.28

4.91%

5.98%

94.02%

53

63

14.60

12.85%

45.13%

54.87%

9.88

9.55%

14.16%

85.84%

9.44

8.77%

14.76%

85.24%

38

45

11.35

9.99%

55.12%

44.88%

15.26

14.75%

28.92%

71.08%

11.35

10.55%

25.30%

74.70%

20

28

15.63

13.76%

68.88%

31.12%

27.92

26.99%

55.91%

44.09%

22.71

21.10%

46.41%

53.59%

35.36

31.12%

100.00%

0.00%

45.60

44.09%

100.00%

0.00%

57.67

53.59%

100.00%

0.00%

Total

113.61

103.43

107.61

82

3102

4102

Mean
Size

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

4102

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

3350

3350

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

2380

2824

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1680

2000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1190

1414

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

840

1000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

595

707

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

425

503

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

297

355

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

212

251

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

150

178

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

106

126

0.89

0.75%

0.75%

99.25%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

75

89

6.01

5.10%

5.85%

94.15%

0.31

0.58%

0.58%

99.42%

53

63

10.15

8.61%

14.46%

85.54%

1.20

2.23%

2.80%

97.20%

38

45

11.77

9.98%

24.44%

75.56%

3.15

5.84%

8.65%

91.35%

20

28

28.74

24.38%

48.82%

51.18%

14.51

26.92%

35.57%

64.43%

60.34

51.18%

100.00%

0.00%

34.73

64.43%

100.00%

0.00%

Screen

117.90

Total

53.90

7102

8102

Mean
Size

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

3350

3350

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

2380

2824

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1680

2000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1190

1414

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

840

1000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

595

707

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

425

503

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

297

355

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

212

251

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

150

178

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

106

126

1.07

1.26%

1.26%

98.74%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

75

89

3.29

3.89%

5.15%

94.85%

0.53

0.50%

0.50%

99.50%

53

63

10.82

12.79%

17.94%

82.06%

2.56

2.42%

2.92%

97.08%

38

45

10.73

12.68%

30.63%

69.37%

6.15

5.80%

8.72%

91.28%

20

28

25.68

30.35%

60.98%

39.02%

26.09

24.62%

33.35%

66.65%

33.01

39.02%

100.00%

0.00%

70.62

66.65%

100.00%

0.00%

Screen

Total

84.60

105.95

83

ii.

Linear-Log Plots

These plots were shared in the thesis.

iii.

Laser Diffraction (Cilas) results ( Fresh Feed, Bulk Cleaner Feed , Separation Feed )

84

Laser Diffraction (Cilas) results continued (Lead cleaner feed, Reground Bulk Rougher Feed, Zinc Concentrate)

85

Laser Diffraction (Cilas) results continued (Lead Concentrate)

86

Appendix 3. Grinding time determination results

i.

Reference ore dry & wet screening results

Wt (g)

Wt%

Feed
Wt C Rtn %

3350

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

2824

17.74

7.17%

7.17%

92.83%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1680

2000

60.39

24.40%

31.57%

68.43%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1190

1414

25.75

10.40%

41.97%

58.03%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

840

1000

19.36

7.82%

49.79%

50.21%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

595

707

14.15

5.72%

55.51%

44.49%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

425

503

12.91

5.22%

60.73%

39.27%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

297

355

12.04

4.86%

65.59%

34.41%

1.02

0.86%

0.86%

99.14%

212

251

14.21

5.74%

71.33%

28.67%

11.65

9.79%

10.65%

89.35%

150

178

15.55

6.28%

77.62%

22.38%

22.51

18.91%

29.56%

70.44%

106

126

12.37

5.00%

82.61%

17.39%

17.20

14.45%

44.01%

55.99%

75

89

12.13

4.90%

87.52%

12.48%

16.38

13.76%

57.78%

42.22%

53

63

9.50

3.84%

91.35%

8.65%

11.62

9.76%

67.54%

32.46%

38

45

7.15

2.89%

94.24%

5.76%

8.78

7.38%

74.92%

25.08%

20

28

6.13

2.48%

96.72%

3.28%

11.74

9.86%

84.78%

15.22%

8.12

3.28%

100.00%

0.00%

18.11

15.22%

100.00%

0.00%

247.50

100.00%

Screen

Mean Size

3350
2380

Total

Wt C Pass %

Wt (g)

5 min Grinding
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

119.01

10 min Grinding
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %

15 min Grinding
Wt%
Wt C Rtn %

Screen

Mean Size

Wt C Pass %

Wt (g)

3350

3350

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

2380

2824

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1680

2000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1190

1414

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

840

1000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

595

707

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

425

503

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

297

355

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

212

251

0.23

0.19%

0.19%

99.81%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

150

178

3.52

2.93%

3.12%

96.88%

0.49

0.43%

0.43%

99.57%

106

126

13.27

11.04%

14.17%

85.83%

2.83

2.47%

2.90%

97.10%

75

89

22.84

19.01%

33.18%

66.82%

14.86

12.99%

15.89%

84.11%

53

63

19.64

16.35%

49.52%

50.48%

20.56

17.97%

33.86%

66.14%

38

45

12.57

10.46%

59.98%

40.02%

15.90

13.90%

47.76%

52.24%

20

28

18.54

15.43%

75.41%

24.59%

22.26

19.46%

67.22%

32.78%

29.54

24.59%

100.00%

0.00%

37.50

32.78%

100.00%

0.00%

120.15

100.00%

Total

Wt (g)

114.40

87

Wt C Pass %

ii.
Screen

Mellanby ore dry & wet screening results

Feed

Mean Size

5 min Grinding

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

3350

3350

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

2380

2824

19.50

8.06%

8.06%

91.94%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1680

2000

43.52

17.99%

26.05%

73.95%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1190

1414

23.25

9.61%

35.66%

64.34%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

840

1000

20.68

8.55%

44.21%

55.79%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

595

707

16.18

6.69%

50.89%

49.11%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

425

503

14.91

6.16%

57.06%

42.94%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

297

355

13.59

5.62%

62.67%

37.33%

5.26

4.26%

4.26%

95.74%

212

251

14.41

5.96%

68.63%

31.37%

19.78

16.01%

20.27%

79.73%

150

178

14.54

6.01%

74.64%

25.36%

21.62

17.50%

37.78%

62.22%

106

126

11.55

4.77%

79.41%

20.59%

14.48

11.72%

49.50%

50.50%

75

89

12.36

5.11%

84.52%

15.48%

14.68

11.88%

61.38%

38.62%

53

63

10.91

4.51%

89.03%

10.97%

10.96

8.87%

70.26%

29.74%

38

45

9.25

3.82%

92.85%

7.15%

7.95

6.44%

76.69%

23.31%

20

28

5.40

2.23%

95.09%

4.91%

11.84

9.59%

86.28%

13.72%

11.89

4.91%

100.00%

0.00%

16.95

13.72%

100.00%

0.00%

241.94

Total
Screen

123.52
10 min Grinding

Mean Size
Wt (g)

15 min Grinding

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

3350

3350

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

2380

2824

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1680

2000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1190

1414

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

840

1000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

595

707

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

425

503

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

297

355

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

212

251

0.32

0.26%

0.26%

99.74%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

150

178

5.91

4.78%

5.04%

94.96%

0.69

0.60%

0.60%

99.40%

106

126

16.51

13.35%

18.39%

81.61%

3.73

3.24%

3.84%

96.16%

75

89

25.87

20.92%

39.32%

60.68%

16.81

14.59%

18.43%

81.57%

53

63

16.83

13.61%

52.93%

47.07%

20.17

17.51%

35.94%

64.06%

38

45

12.53

10.13%

63.06%

36.94%

16.15

14.02%

49.96%

50.04%

20

28

16.71

13.52%

76.58%

23.42%

21.96

19.06%

69.03%

30.97%

28.96

23.42%

100.00%

0.00%

35.68

30.97%

100.00%

0.00%

Total

123.64

115.19

88

iii.

Savsjon ore dry & wet screening results

Feed

5 min Grinding

Mean
Size

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

3350

3350

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

2380

2824

18.51

8.03%

8.03%

91.97%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1680

2000

43.51

18.87%

26.90%

73.10%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1190

1414

20.67

8.97%

35.87%

64.13%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

840

1000

16.06

6.97%

42.83%

57.17%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

595

707

13.54

5.87%

48.71%

51.29%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

425

503

12.80

5.55%

54.26%

45.74%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

297

355

13.08

5.67%

59.93%

40.07%

0.76

0.61%

0.61%

99.39%

212

251

16.34

7.09%

67.02%

32.98%

8.45

6.73%

7.34%

92.66%

150

178

17.63

7.65%

74.67%

25.33%

24.68

19.66%

27.00%

73.00%

106

126

13.47

5.84%

80.51%

19.49%

20.56

16.38%

43.38%

56.62%

75

89

13.06

5.66%

86.18%

13.82%

18.47

14.72%

58.10%

41.90%

53

63

9.57

4.15%

90.33%

9.67%

14.02

11.17%

69.27%

30.73%

38

45

7.27

3.15%

93.48%

6.52%

8.94

7.12%

76.39%

23.61%

20

28

5.99

2.60%

96.08%

3.92%

12.90

10.28%

86.67%

13.33%

9.04

3.92%

100.00%

0.00%

16.73

13.33%

100.00%

0.00%

Screen

230.54

Total
Screen

125.51
10 min Grinding

Mean Size

15 min Grinding

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

3350

3350

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

2380

2824

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1680

2000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1190

1414

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

840

1000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

595

707

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

425

503

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

297

355

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

212

251

0.41

0.33%

0.33%

99.67%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

150

178

2.78

2.27%

2.60%

97.40%

0.95

0.81%

0.81%

99.19%

106

126

11.31

9.23%

11.84%

88.16%

2.99

2.54%

3.35%

96.65%

75

89

24.26

19.81%

31.65%

68.35%

15.61

13.27%

16.62%

83.38%

53

63

20.42

16.67%

48.32%

51.68%

19.76

16.80%

33.42%

66.58%

38

45

13.64

11.14%

59.45%

40.55%

17.08

14.52%

47.94%

52.06%

20

28

20.02

16.35%

75.80%

24.20%

23.43

19.92%

67.86%

32.14%

29.64

24.20%

100.00%

0.00%

37.80

32.14%

100.00%

0.00%

Total

122.48

117.62

89

iv.

Borta Bakom ore dry & wet screening results

Feed

Screen

5 min Grinding

Mean Size
Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass
%

3350

3350

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

2380

2824

10.25

4.42%

4.42%

95.58%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1680

2000

47.16

20.34%

24.76%

75.24%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1190

1414

23.45

10.11%

34.87%

65.13%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

840

1000

19.78

8.53%

43.40%

56.60%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

595

707

16.28

7.02%

50.42%

49.58%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

425

503

14.39

6.20%

56.62%

43.38%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

297

355

12.55

5.41%

62.03%

37.97%

5.33

4.43%

4.43%

95.57%

212

251

13.37

5.77%

67.80%

32.20%

18.92

15.73%

20.16%

79.84%

150

178

13.47

5.81%

73.61%

26.39%

20.35

16.92%

37.09%

62.91%

106

126

10.82

4.67%

78.27%

21.73%

13.76

11.44%

48.53%

51.47%

75

89

12.45

5.37%

83.64%

16.36%

13.49

11.22%

59.75%

40.25%

53

63

10.31

4.45%

88.09%

11.91%

10.59

8.81%

68.55%

31.45%

38

45

8.91

3.84%

91.93%

8.07%

7.93

6.59%

75.15%

24.85%

20

28

5.27

2.27%

94.20%

5.80%

11.23

9.34%

84.48%

15.52%

13.45

5.80%

100.00%

0.00%

18.66

15.52%

100.00%

0.00%

231.91

Total

120.26
10 min Grinding

Screen

15 min Grinding

Mean Size

3350

3350

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

Wt C Pass
%
100.00%

2380

2824

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1680

2000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

1190

1414

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

840

1000

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

595

707

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

425

503

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

297

355

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

212

251

0.19

0.16%

0.16%

99.84%

0.00

0.00%

0.00%

100.00%

150

178

2.33

1.95%

2.11%

97.89%

0.52

0.41%

0.41%

99.59%

106

126

11.56

9.66%

11.76%

88.24%

4.61

3.59%

4.00%

96.00%

75

89

22.92

19.15%

30.91%

69.09%

18.48

14.41%

18.41%

81.59%

53

63

18.07

15.09%

46.00%

54.00%

23.17

18.07%

36.48%

63.52%

38

45

13.48

11.26%

57.26%

42.74%

16.36

12.76%

49.24%

50.76%

20

28

20.66

17.26%

74.52%

25.48%

24.38

19.01%

68.25%

31.75%

30.50

25.48%

100.00%

0.00%

40.72

31.75%

100.00%

0.00%

Total

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

Wt C Pass %

Wt (g)

Wt%

Wt C Rtn %

119.71

128.24

90

Feed and Ground Ore Plots

Mellanby Grinding Results

100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%

Cum wt. % Pass

Cum wt. % Pass

v.

10

100

Savsjon Grinding Results

100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%

1000

10

100

Particle Size (m)

10 min

5 min

Particle Size (m)

15 min

1102

Borta Bakom Grinding Results

100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
10

100
10 min

15 min

15 min

5 min

80.00%
60.00%
40.00%

20.00%
0.00%

1000

Particle Size (m)

1102

10 min

Crushed Ore- Grinding Feed PSD's

100.00%

Cum Wt. % Pass

Cum wt. % Pass

1102

1000

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Particle Size (m)

5 min

Reference

91

Savsjon

Mellanby

Borta Bakom

vi.

Laser diffraction ( Cilas ) results for 10 minute grinding (Reference , Borta Bakom )

92

Laser Diffraction (Cilas) Results continued (Mellanby, Savsjon)

93

Appendix 4.1 Chemical Analysis Results

Name

Number

Weight
(g)

S%

Ca
%

Mn
ppm

Fe
%

Co
ppm

Cu ppm

Zn
%

As
ppm

Ag
ppm

Cd
ppm

Sb
ppm

Pb
%

Bi
ppm

SiO2
%

MgO
%

1102

65101

44.0

4.6

3.5

3265.0

4.4

35.0

1080.7

8.0

61.0

74.6

259.0

54.0

3.5

3.0

44.7

3.0

2102

65102

54.0

17.3

2.1

2337.0

4.3

59.0

4156.7

30.6

50.0

82.4

616.9

99.0

5.3

3.0

14.0

1.4

3102

65103

59.0

NA

NA

1186.0

3.0

92.0

4998.0

39.1

NA

362.5

816.0

327.0

2.0

14.0

1.5

0.2

4102

65104

56.0

18.0

NA

645.0

4.2

140.0

15245.0

26.2

79.0

1114.0

562.0

596.0

44.8

34.0

1.7

0.2

5202

65105

49.0

21.2

1.7

2015.0

3.5

58.0

4540.5

29.3

90.0

126.2

514.1

100.0

6.8

4.0

5.6

0.7

7101

65106

49.0

33.2

NA

1771.0

5.0

164.0

674.0

55.2

155.0

197.3

1373.0

66.0

2.6

3.0

2.5

0.1

8101

65107

57.0

14.8

NA

237.0

2.9

64.0

24740.0

5.4

80.0

1246.0

131.0

646.0

71.5

49.0

0.5

0.0

R1

R-T2-1

65108

58.0

5.3

3.3

3360.0

4.3

38.0

435.7

8.9

55.0

72.3

291.3

53.0

4.0

3.0

46.9

2.7

S1

S-T2-1

65109

57.0

7.6

3.5

3260.0

5.5

109.0

435.0

10.5

65.0

79.9

283.2

43.0

3.5

3.0

44.8

3.0

M-T2-1

65112

56.0

4.8

3.8

3498.0

5.9

59.0

142.5

7.3

-3.0

63.3

242.6

23.0

1.8

2.0

51.8

2.7

M-T2-2

65111

60.0

4.7

3.8

3470.0

5.8

64.0

155.1

7.2

0.0

63.2

242.5

17.0

1.7

2.0

52.0

2.7

M-T2-3

65114

65.0

4.7

3.8

3473.0

5.8

48.0

216.9

7.4

12.0

77.0

255.0

43.0

1.8

2.0

49.8

2.6

M-T1-1

65110

57.0

4.6

3.6

2773.0

5.7

110.0

431.0

7.1

19.0

83.9

393.2

45.0

1.7

3.0

38.5

2.7

M-T3-1

65113

58.0

4.7

3.8

3504.0

6.0

62.0

156.6

7.4

4.0

68.6

245.7

15.0

1.8

2.0

51.5

2.7

BB1

BB-T2-1

65115

57.0

4.7

4.2

4348.0

4.7

59.0

91.9

6.5

53.0

52.1

203.5

30.0

3.0

3.0

55.8

2.3

65116

47.0

21.0

1.5

0.2

8.7

0.0

0.2

34.7

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

20.2

NA

7.7

NA

65117

34.0

22.2

1.6

0.3

9.4

0.0

0.2

36.5

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

15.1

NA

8.6

NA

65118

42.0

21.1

2.6

0.3

10.5

0.0

0.1

32.8

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

9.4

NA

13.9

NA

M2

M-T4-6C1
M-T4-6C2
M-T4-6C3
M-T4-6C4
M-T4-6C5
M-T4-6C6
M-T4-6T

65119

43.0

18.5

3.8

0.4

11.3

0.0

0.1

27.4

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

6.2

NA

19.8

NA

65120

53.0

11.8

3.1

3157.0

7.3

119.0

279.9

17.9

9.0

75.7

594.3

47.0

1.8

2.0

33.5

2.1

65121

44.0

6.6

3.8

3454.0

6.8

88.0

161.1

9.7

0.0

72.8

390.7

46.0

1.2

2.0

45.5

2.7

65122

39.0

2.2

4.7

3389.0

5.2

1.0

213.0

3.0

-120.0

14.2

60.7

21.0

0.2

1.0

54.1

3.1

R-T9-C1

65123

39.0

21.6

1.2

0.3

6.2

0.0

0.2

38.5

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

21.3

NA

6.0

NA

R-T9-C2

65124

38.0

24.5

1.2

0.3

6.6

0.0

0.2

43.1

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

14.8

NA

5.1

NA

R-T9-C3

65125

37.0

23.5

1.5

0.3

6.8

0.0

0.2

41.1

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

15.2

NA

6.3

NA

Origin

P1

M1

R2

94

S2

BB2

P2

M3

R-T9-C4

65126

35.0

20.1

3.6

0.5

8.1

0.0

0.2

31.9

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

9.4

NA

14.9

NA

R-T9-C5

65127

34.0

10.3

6.8

0.7

9.1

0.0

0.1

19.5

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

6.9

NA

27.3

NA

R-T9-C6

65128

52.0

3.7

4.1

4228.0

5.6

123.0

396.8

3.8

150.0

81.7

66.9

87.0

2.7

3.0

50.0

3.3

R-T9-T

65129

37.0

0.3

NA

3591.0

4.0

16.0

58.4

0.2

-16.0

9.0

5.3

9.0

0.3

2.0

59.2

3.5

S-T7-C1

65130

51.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

37.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

21.2

NA

NA

NA

S-T7-C2

65131

43.0

22.9

1.7

0.3

9.9

0.1

0.2

36.2

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

14.1

NA

7.7

NA

S-T7-C3

65132

43.0

22.6

2.0

0.4

10.4

0.1

0.8

35.7

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

11.2

NA

9.0

NA

S-T7-C4

65133

45.0

17.8

4.5

0.4

11.4

0.1

0.1

25.3

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

5.6

NA

18.9

NA

S-T7-C5

65135

49.0

12.7

5.8

0.4

11.7

0.1

0.0

22.6

NA

NA

0.1

NA

1.8

NA

24.2

NA

S-T7-C6

65134

42.0

11.2

3.5

2820.0

7.0

207.0

339.0

13.8

-17.0

83.0

600.2

65.0

1.0

2.0

33.0

2.3

S-T7-T

65136

38.0

1.3

NA

2417.0

3.7

24.0

41.8

1.5

-107.0

12.4

40.5

8.0

0.2

1.0

53.4

3.8

65137

45.0

20.4

1.3

0.4

7.5

0.0

0.1

34.3

NA

0.1

0.1

NA

22.0

NA

8.3

NA

65138

30.0

21.6

1.5

0.5

8.5

NA

0.1

35.6

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

15.5

NA

10.0

NA

65139

33.0

19.9

2.3

0.6

9.2

0.0

0.1

30.6

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

10.4

NA

16.4

NA

65140

29.0

16.4

3.4

0.8

10.0

0.0

0.1

23.5

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

6.9

NA

23.9

NA

65141

32.0

8.2

3.1

4794.0

5.9

49.0

143.5

12.8

46.0

64.6

416.7

24.0

2.5

2.0

42.7

2.3

65142

45.0

6.1

3.2

5052.0

6.1

52.0

70.5

9.4

51.0

61.9

365.8

23.0

1.8

2.0

47.9

2.5

BB-T4-T

65143

43.0

0.7

NA

4653.0

4.0

7.0

19.7

0.9

-42.0

1.8

23.5

7.0

0.2

2.0

62.5

2.7

1102-C1

65144

44.0

21.2

1.4

0.2

5.5

0.0

0.3

37.3

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

21.1

NA

7.3

NA

1102-C2

65145

45.0

23.4

1.3

0.2

6.0

0.0

0.5

40.7

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

15.7

NA

6.9

NA

BB-T4C1
BB-T4C2
BB-T4C3
BB-T4C4
BB-T4C5
BB-T4C6

1102-C3

65146

34.0

22.4

1.9

0.3

6.3

0.0

0.5

37.9

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

15.1

NA

8.8

NA

1102-C4C5

65147

47.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1102-C6

65148

37.0

3.9

4.2

3957.0

5.8

88.0

1839.7

3.1

186.0

86.9

41.2

125.0

3.0

3.0

50.3

3.4

1102-T

65149

41.0

0.2

NA

3446.0

4.2

3.0

155.2

0.2

-34.0

11.6

7.0

24.0

0.3

2.0

58.7

4.1

M-T7-C1

65150

35.0

19.9

1.9

0.3

8.7

0.0

0.2

32.3

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

20.0

NA

9.9

NA

M-T7C2-C3

65151

43.0

19.8

2.9

0.4

10.4

0.0

0.1

30.3

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

10.1

NA

15.9

NA

M-T7-C4

65152

27.0

14.8

5.2

0.5

11.7

0.0

0.1

20.5

NA

NA

0.1

NA

4.6

NA

26.5

NA

M-T7-C5

65153

41.0

8.6

3.5

3322.0

6.9

98.0

194.3

13.5

-9.0

72.5

501.2

35.0

1.5

2.0

41.2

2.4

95

S3

S4

P3

P4

M-T7-C6

65154

45.0

8.8

3.5

3328.0

7.1

95.0

107.9

14.2

-33.0

69.0

548.9

31.0

0.8

2.0

41.2

2.4

M-T7-T

65155

44.0

1.6

NA

3442.0

5.4

30.0

26.6

2.5

-104.0

10.4

49.4

11.0

0.1

1.0

57.7

3.0

S-T5-C1

65156

48.0

22.0

1.1

0.3

8.8

0.1

0.3

36.3

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

21.3

NA

5.0

NA

S-T5-C2

65157

40.0

24.4

1.2

0.3

9.9

0.1

0.2

40.2

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

13.5

NA

5.3

NA

S-T5-C3

65158

33.0

24.6

1.4

0.3

10.0

0.1

0.2

39.7

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

12.5

NA

5.9

NA

S-T5-C4

65159

46.0

22.1

3.0

0.4

11.7

0.1

0.1

32.5

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

5.8

NA

13.2

NA

S-T5-C5

65160

34.0

14.3

3.1

2806.0

8.0

259.0

361.5

17.4

-22.0

83.5

701.2

91.0

1.8

2.0

26.6

2.0

S-T5-C6

65161

56.0

15.1

3.1

2862.0

9.4

276.0

170.2

17.2

-70.0

75.4

760.6

51.0

0.8

1.0

26.4

2.0

S-T5-T

65162

37.0

0.9

NA

2459.0

3.7

5.0

36.6

0.9

-93.0

16.4

28.5

2.0

0.2

1.0

54.2

4.0

S-T8-C1

65163

49.0

21.5

1.4

0.3

8.9

0.1

0.3

35.0

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

21.2

NA

6.1

NA

S-T8-C2

65164

37.0

23.6

1.3

0.3

9.6

0.1

0.3

38.4

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

15.2

NA

5.9

NA

S-T8-C3

65165

43.0

22.7

2.2

0.4

10.5

0.1

0.2

35.1

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

10.2

NA

10.1

NA

S-T8-C4

65166

42.0

17.9

4.5

0.4

11.4

0.1

0.1

25.5

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

5.8

NA

18.6

NA

S-T8-C5

65167

42.0

11.3

3.5

2811.0

6.9

203.0

320.0

13.8

-16.0

78.9

594.9

66.0

1.8

2.0

32.5

2.3

S-T8-C6

65168

48.0

12.2

3.4

2845.0

8.2

232.0

174.8

14.4

-54.0

74.0

695.9

47.0

0.9

1.0

31.4

2.3

S-T8-T

65169

38.0

1.5

NA

2440.0

3.8

23.0

43.9

1.8

-114.0

15.9

51.7

-1.0

0.2

1.0

52.8

3.8

5202-C1

65170

47.0

19.4

0.5

0.1

5.0

0.0

1.4

23.6

NA

0.1

0.1

NA

45.7

NA

2.2

NA

5202-C2

65171

52.0

19.6

0.5

0.1

4.9

0.0

1.4

24.4

NA

0.1

0.1

NA

44.9

NA

2.1

NA

5202-C3

65172

52.0

19.1

0.5

0.1

4.9

0.0

1.2

32.9

NA

0.1

0.1

NA

37.0

NA

2.3

NA

5202-C4

65173

48.0

21.2

0.5

0.2

5.6

0.0

1.2

37.2

NA

0.1

0.1

NA

29.3

NA

2.5

NA

5202-C5

65174

33.0

24.5

0.6

0.2

6.6

0.0

1.0

43.5

NA

0.1

0.1

NA

18.4

NA

2.8

NA

5202-C6

65175

55.0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5202-T

65176

55.0

25.2

NA

2811.0

6.3

202.0

3355.0

42.4

329.0

133.0

1214.0

184.0

2.8

2.0

9.4

0.8

2102-C1

65178

39.0

19.4

1.0

0.2

4.9

0.0

0.9

34.0

NA

0.1

0.1

NA

31.7

NA

4.4

NA

2102-C2

65179

41.0

20.3

0.9

0.2

5.1

0.0

0.9

35.5

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

29.5

NA

4.3

NA

2102-C3

65180

54.0

21.2

0.9

0.2

5.3

0.0

0.9

36.9

NA

0.1

0.1

NA

27.4

NA

4.1

NA

2102-C4

65181

44.0

22.8

0.9

0.2

5.7

0.0

0.9

39.3

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

22.5

NA

4.2

NA

2102-C5

65182

42.0

25.2

1.0

0.2

6.6

0.0

0.9

43.1

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

14.3

NA

4.8

NA

2102-C6

65183

37.0

26.3

1.5

0.3

7.1

0.0

0.4

45.4

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

4.8

NA

7.2

NA

2102-C7

65184

56.0

21.5

2.8

3073.0

6.1

172.0

3927.0

38.4

216.0

132.4

1185.0

143.0

2.9

2.0

15.0

1.1

96

P5

Optimizati
on Tests

2102-T

65185

49.0

8.2

3.7

3767.0

6.4

83.0

1539.7

14.7

-28.0

82.2

617.0

187.0

0.8

2.0

38.9

3.2

3102-C1

65187

29.0

17.8

0.6

0.1

4.2

NA

1.2

18.0

NA

0.8

0.0

NA

54.1

NA

1.8

NA

3102-C2

65188

33.0

18.2

0.6

0.1

4.0

0.0

1.0

19.1

NA

0.1

0.0

NA

53.5

NA

1.8

NA

3102-C3

65189

47.0

19.0

0.6

0.1

4.2

0.0

1.0

22.5

NA

0.1

0.1

NA

48.5

NA

2.0

NA

3102-C4

65190

47.0

19.0

0.7

0.1

4.5

0.0

1.0

33.8

NA

0.1

0.1

NA

36.5

NA

2.3

NA

3102-C5

65191

55.0

21.7

0.8

0.2

5.5

0.0

1.1

38.5

NA

0.1

0.1

NA

26.7

NA

3.0

NA

3102-C6

65192

49.0

24.1

1.1

0.2

6.4

0.0

0.9

42.0

NA

0.0

0.1

NA

17.3

NA

4.4

NA

3102-T

65193

51.0

29.1

NA

1832.0

5.4

170.0

1695.0

54.1

177.0

65.2

1323.0

80.0

2.3

2.0

4.6

0.5

BB-T20

65271

60.0

0.6

2.8

4759.0

4.0

16.0

17.0

1.0

NA

2.6

25.7

1.0

0.2

2.0

63.3

2.5

S-T21

65272

60.0

1.4

4.5

2456.0

3.7

20.0

36.0

1.8

NA

15.2

49.9

12.0

0.1

1.0

53.2

3.9

M-T12

65273

60.0

1.7

4.1

3455.0

5.4

33.0

29.0

2.7

NA

11.3

54.1

15.0

0.1

1.0

57.6

2.9

M-T9

65274

60.0

0.2

4.4

3595.0

5.2

20.0

44.0

0.3

NA

8.7

4.6

14.0

0.2

2.0

61.3

3.2

BB-T22

65275

60.0

0.2

4.7

2470.0

3.4

-9.0

54.0

0.1

NA

15.7

4.8

0.0

0.2

2.0

55.7

4.1

S-T22

65276

60.0

0.2

2.8

4687.0

3.9

-3.0

42.0

0.1

NA

1.9

5.8

-1.0

0.3

2.0

64.4

2.8

S-T20

65277

60.0

1.2

4.5

2498.0

3.8

11.0

30.0

1.4

NA

16.0

40.0

6.0

0.1

1.0

53.7

3.8

BB-T21

65278

60.0

0.7

2.8

4842.0

4.1

6.0

19.0

1.1

NA

4.1

26.7

14.0

0.2

2.0

62.7

2.6

M-T7-T

65155

44.0

1.6

NA

3442.0

5.4

30.0

26.6

2.5

-104.0

10.4

49.4

11.0

0.1

1.0

57.7

3.0

97

Appendix 4.2 Flotation Test Report and Results

i.

Reference R-T9 - Bulk Rougher Kinetics

Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
d80
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Flotation Pulp Density (%)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Total (ml)
Total (g/t)

Product
Conc1 (0.0-0.5 min)
Conc2 (0.5-1.0 min)
Conc3 (1.0-2.0 min)
Conc4 (2.0 - 4.0 min)
Conc5 (4.0 - 8.0 min)
Conc6 (8.0 - 16.0 min )
Tailings
BackCalculated Feed
Feed

31.3.2015
1
Reference Kinetics
R-T9
970.4
10
60.00
102
7260
29.27%
953.77
16.63
380.00

Sphalerite
Galena

Zn
61.65%
0.00%

Fe
5.49%
0.00%

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%

Reagents (ml)
Na Bisulpide

Acid

SIPX

2.50
0.75

1.00

Weight Solid (g)

82.87
37.88
36.95
34.69
33.95
52.03
675.40
953.77

Time (m)

NasFroth

3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8

0.020

0.015
0.50

0.50

3.750
157.27

1.500
39.32

Weight (%)
8.69%
3.97%
3.87%
3.64%
3.56%
5.46%
70.81%

Cum Wt %
8.69%
12.66%
16.53%
20.17%
23.73%
29.19%
100.00%

98

Pb
0.00%
86.39%

S-Cd
32.86%
13.06%

Cu
0.00%
0.00%

pH
9.13
8.25
8.00
8.05
8.12
8.17
8.23
8.29
7.95
8.26

Last
Eh
9.00
10.00
10.00
19.00
11.00
17.00

Temp
22.3
22.6
22.8
22.9
23.1
23.3
23.5
23.6
23.8
24.8

Pb %
21.301
14.797
15.191
9.423
6.894
2.690
0.280
3.960
4.030

SiO2 %
5.980
5.143
6.253
14.874
27.284
50.000
59.200
47.128
46.900

0.035
36.91

Results
S%
21.636
24.465
23.526
20.058
10.252
3.700
0.280
5.258
5.300

Fe %
6.193
6.649
6.762
8.125
9.053
5.550
4.000
4.817
4.810

Cu %
0.151
0.167
0.169
0.173
0.111
0.040
0.006
0.043
0.044

Zn %
38.472
43.145
41.057
31.945
19.462
3.790
0.220
8.864
8.940

Ag %
0.024
0.021
0.034
0.020
0.026
0.008
0.001
0.007
0.007

Stream

Time

Feed
C1

0.50

M1
C2

1.00

M2
C3

2.00

M3
C4

4.00

M4
C5

8.00

M
C6
Tailings

16.00

Solids
Recovery%

Zn %

Pb %

Cu
%

S%

Sph %

Gn %

Ccp
%

NSG
%

Sph Rec

Gn Rec

Ccp Rec

NSG Rec

100.0%

8.86

3.96

0.04

5.26

14.37

4.58

0.12

80.92

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

8.7%

38.42

21.30

0.15

21.64

62.32

24.66

0.44

12.59

37.7%

46.7%

30.5%

1.4%

91.3%

6.04

2.31

0.03

3.70

9.80

2.67

0.09

87.43

62.3%

53.3%

69.5%

98.6%

4.0%

43.15

14.80

0.17

24.47

69.98

17.13

0.48

12.41

19.3%

14.8%

15.4%

0.6%

87.3%

4.36

1.74

0.03

2.75

7.07

2.02

0.08

90.84

43.0%

38.4%

54.0%

98.0%

3.9%

41.06

15.19

0.17

23.53

66.60

17.58

0.49

15.33

17.9%

14.8%

15.2%

0.7%

83.5%

2.66

1.12

0.02

1.79

4.31

1.29

0.06

94.34

25.0%

23.6%

38.8%

97.3%

3.6%

31.95

9.42

0.17

20.06

51.82

10.91

0.50

36.78

13.1%

8.7%

14.7%

1.7%

79.8%

1.32

0.74

0.01

0.96

2.14

0.86

0.04

96.96

11.9%

14.9%

24.2%

95.7%

3.6%

19.43

6.89

0.11

10.25

31.51

7.98

0.32

60.19

7.8%

6.2%

9.2%

2.6%

76.3%

0.48

0.45

0.01

0.52

0.77

0.52

0.02

98.68

4.1%

8.7%

15.0%

93.0%

5.5%

3.79

2.69

0.04

3.70

6.15

3.11

0.12

90.62

2.3%

3.7%

5.1%

70.8%

0.22

0.28

0.01

0.28

0.36

0.32

0.02

99.30

1.8%

5.0%

9.9%

99

Sph Cum
Rec

Gn Cum
Rec

Ccp Cum
Rec

NSG Cum
Rec

37.7%

46.7%

30.5%

1.4%

57.0%

61.6%

46.0%

2.0%

75.0%

76.4%

61.2%

2.7%

88.1%

85.1%

75.8%

4.3%

95.9%

91.3%

85.0%

7.0%

6.1%

98.2%

95.0%

90.1%

13.1%

86.9%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

ii.

A. Savsjon S-T7 Bulk Rougher Kinetics

Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
d80 (m)
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Flotation Pulp Density (%)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Total (ml)
Total (g/t)

Product
Conc1 (0.0-0.5 min)
Conc2 (0.5-1.0 min)
Conc3 (1.0-2.0 min)
Conc4 (2.0 - 4.0 min)
Conc5 (4.0 - 8.0 min)
Conc6 (8.0 - 16.0 min )
Tailings
BackCalculated Feed
Feed

7.4.2015
1
Savsjon Kinetics
S-T7
1012.7
10
60.00
102
7270
30.46%
999.86
12.84
350.00

Savsjon Ore Type

Sphalerite
Galena

Zn
59.52%
0.00%

Fe
7.60%
0.00%

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%

Reagents (ml)
Na Bisulpide

Acid

SIPX

2.500
0.750

1.000

Weight Solid (g)

92.6
43.0
43.5
45.2
42.5
63.4
669.8
999.9

Time (m)

NasFroth

3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8

0.020

0.014
0.500

0.500

3.750
150.02

1.500
37.51

Weight (%)
9.3%
4.3%
4.3%
4.5%
4.2%
6.3%
67.0%

Cum Wt %
9.3%
13.6%
17.9%
22.4%
26.7%
33.0%
100.0%

100

Pb
0.00%
86.39%

S
32.86%
13.58%

Cu
0.00%
0.00%

pH
9.20
8.25
8.03
8.11
8.15
8.18
8.25
8.30
8.00
8.27

Last
Eh
8.00
6.00
7.00
17.00
19.00
21.00
22.00
26.00
7.00
22.00

Temp
22.20
22.50
22.60
22.70
22.90
23.00
23.40
23.60
23.80
24.10

0.034
34.00

Results
S%
21.90
22.88
22.63
17.82
11.16
12.67
1.26
6.92
7.59

Fe %
8.80
9.86
10.40
11.41
11.68
7.04
3.74
5.65
5.49

Cu %
0.31
0.25
0.24
0.12
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.06
0.05

Zn %
36.97
38.20
35.69
25.28
22.60
13.77
1.47
10.58
10.52

Ag %
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01

Pb %
21.17
14.09
11.24
5.57
1.76
0.95
0.15
3.54
3.52

SiO2 %
5.50
7.72
8.98
18.86
24.21
33.00
53.40
40.98
44.80

Stream

Time

Feed
C1

0.50

M1
C2

1.00

M2
C3

2.00

M3
C4

4.00

M4
C5

8.00

M
C6
Tailings

16.00

Solids
Recovery
%

Zn %

100.0%
9.3%

Pb %

Cu
%

S%

Sph
%

Gn %

Ccp
%

NSG
%

Sph Rec

Gn Rec

Ccp Rec

NSG
Rec

10.58

3.54

36.97

21.17

0.06

6.92

0.31

21.90

90.7%

7.89

1.74

0.04

4.3%

38.20

14.09

86.4%

6.38

4.4%

17.77

4.10

0.18

77.95

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

62.11

24.51

0.90

12.49

32.4%

55.3%

46.1%

1.5%

5.39

13.25

2.02

0.11

84.63

67.6%

44.7%

53.9%

98.5%

0.25

22.88

64.18

16.31

0.71

18.80

15.5%

17.1%

17.1%

1.0%

1.13

0.03

4.53

10.72

1.31

0.08

87.90

52.1%

27.6%

36.8%

97.5%

35.69

11.24

0.24

22.63

59.96

13.01

0.70

26.33

14.7%

13.8%

17.0%

1.5%

82.1%

4.83

0.59

0.02

3.57

8.11

0.69

0.04

91.16

37.4%

13.8%

19.8%

96.0%

4.5%

25.28

5.57

0.12

17.82

42.47

6.45

0.34

50.74

10.8%

7.1%

8.6%

2.9%

77.6%

3.63

0.30

0.01

2.74

6.10

0.35

0.03

93.52

26.6%

6.6%

11.2%

93.1%

4.3%

22.60

1.76

0.04

11.16

37.97

2.03

0.12

59.87

9.1%

2.1%

2.9%

3.3%

73.3%

2.53

0.22

0.01

2.25

4.26

0.25

0.02

95.47

17.6%

4.5%

8.3%

89.8%

6.3%

13.77

0.95

0.02

12.67

23.14

1.10

0.06

75.71

8.3%

1.7%

2.0%

67.0%

1.47

0.15

0.01

1.26

2.47

0.17

0.02

97.34

9.3%

2.8%

6.2%

101

Sph Cum
Rec

Gn Cum
Rec

Ccp Cum
Rec

NSG Cum
Rec

32.4%

55.3%

46.1%

1.5%

47.9%

72.4%

63.2%

2.5%

62.6%

86.2%

80.2%

4.0%

73.4%

93.4%

88.8%

6.9%

82.4%

95.5%

91.7%

10.2%

6.2%

90.7%

97.2%

93.8%

16.4%

83.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

B. Savsjon S-T5 Bulk Rougher Kinetics

Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
d80 (m)
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Flotation Pulp Density (%)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)

Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Total (ml)
Total (g/t)

Product
Conc1
Conc2
Conc3
Conc4
Conc5
Conc6
Tailings
BackCalculated Feed
Analyzed Feed

7.4.2015
No
Savsjon Kinetics
S-T8
989.1
10
60.00
102
7260
29.84%
978.02
11.08
350.00

Na Bisulpide

Weight Solid (g)

93.37
37.13
43.38
41.96
41.97
61.78
658.43
978.02

Zn
59.52%
0.00%

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%

Reagents (ml)
Acid

Savsjon Ore Type

Sphalerite
Galena

2.50
0.50

SIPX

Fe
7.60%
0.00%

NasFroth

Time (m)

1.00

3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8

0.020

0.014
0.50

0.50

3.500
143.15

1.500
38.34

Weight (%)
9.55%
3.80%
4.44%
4.29%
4.29%
6.32%
67.32%

Cum Wt %
9.55%
13.34%
17.78%
22.07%
26.36%
32.68%
100.00%

102

Pb
0.00%
86.39%

pH
9.17
8.26
8.04
8.12
8.16
8.22
8.28
8.32
7.98
8.31

S
32.86%
13.58%

Last
Eh
17.00
4.00
6.00
15.00
17.00
18.00
19.00
19.00
7.00
15.00

Cu
0.00%
0.00%

Temp
21.30
21.50
21.60
21.70
21.90
22.10
22.40
22.60
22.70
23.70

0.034
34.76

Results
S%
21.483
23.634
22.674
17.912
11.310
12.230
1.470
6.970
7.590

Fe %
8.871
9.616
10.511
11.405
6.880
8.180
3.830
5.558
5.490

Cu %
0.328
0.257
0.176
0.110
0.032
0.017
0.004
0.059
0.055

Zn %
34.969
38.377
35.056
25.457
13.770
14.400
1.820
10.168
10.520

Ag %
0.040
0.036
0.027
0.016
0.008
0.007
0.002
0.009
0.008

Pb %
21.152
15.165
10.249
5.765
1.780
0.910
0.150
3.532
3.520

SiO2 %
6.112
5.860
10.056
18.586
32.500
31.400
52.800
40.974
44.800

Stream

Time

Feed
C1

0.50

M1
C2

1.00

M2
C3

2.00

M3
C4

4.00

M4
C5

8.00

M
C6
Tailings

16.00

Solids
Recovery
%

Zn %

Pb %

Cu %

S%

Sph
%

Gn %

Ccp
%

NSG %

Sph Rec

Gn Rec

Ccp Rec

NSG Rec

100.0%

10.23

3.54

0.06

6.95

17.18

4.10

0.16

78.56

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

9.8%

36.34

21.35

0.31

22.05

61.04

24.71

0.89

13.37

34.8%

59.0%

53.7%

1.7%

90.2%

7.40

1.61

0.03

5.31

12.42

1.86

0.08

85.63

65.2%

41.0%

46.3%

98.3%

Sph Cum
Rec

Gn Cum
Rec

Ccp Cum
Rec

NSG Cum
Rec

34.8%

59.0%

53.7%

1.7%

50.6%

74.4%

69.6%

2.5%

63.6%

86.2%

81.5%

3.3%

78.3%

93.8%

91.1%

5.5%

84.2%

95.6%

93.4%

8.6%

4.0%

40.20

13.50

0.22

24.43

67.51

15.62

0.64

16.23

15.9%

15.4%

15.9%

0.8%

86.2%

5.86

1.05

0.02

4.42

9.84

1.22

0.06

88.89

49.4%

25.6%

30.4%

97.5%

3.4%

39.71

12.46

0.20

24.59

66.70

14.42

0.58

18.30

13.0%

11.8%

12.0%

0.8%

82.8%

4.49

0.59

0.01

3.60

7.54

0.68

0.04

91.74

36.4%

13.8%

18.5%

96.7%

4.6%

32.48

5.81

0.12

22.07

54.56

6.72

0.33

38.38

14.7%

7.6%

9.6%

2.3%

78.2%

2.83

0.28

0.01

2.51

4.76

0.32

0.02

94.90

21.7%

6.2%

8.9%

94.5%

3.5%

17.38

1.80

0.04

14.25

29.19

2.08

0.10

68.62

5.9%

1.8%

2.2%

3.0%

74.7%

2.16

0.21

0.00

1.96

3.63

0.24

0.01

96.11

15.8%

4.4%

6.6%

91.4%

5.7%

17.22

0.81

0.02

15.09

28.92

0.94

0.05

70.09

9.5%

1.3%

1.7%

5.0%

93.7%

96.9%

95.1%

13.6%

69.1%

0.93

0.16

0.00

0.89

1.56

0.19

0.01

98.24

6.3%

3.1%

4.9%

86.4%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

103

C. Savsjon S-T8 Bulk Rougher Kinetics

Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
d80 (m)
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Flotation Pulp Density (%)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)

Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Total (ml)
Total (g/t)

Product
Conc1
Conc2
Conc3
Conc4
Conc5
Conc6
Tailings
BackCalculated Feed
Feed

1.4.2015
2
Savsjon Kinetics
S-T5
1005.1
10
60.00
102
7290
30.05%
995.50
9.60
350.00

Zn
59.52%
0.00%

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%

Reagents (ml)
Acid

Na Bisulpide
-

SIPX

2.50
0.75

Fe
7.60%
0.00%

Time (m)

NasFroth

1.00

3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8

0.020

0.014

Weight Solid (g)

97.47
40.26
33.33
46.10
34.35
56.24
687.75
995.50

Savsjon Ore Type

Sphalerite
Galena

Weight (%)
9.79%
4.04%
3.35%
4.63%
3.45%
5.65%
69.09%

0.50

0.50

3.750
150.68

1.500
37.67

Cum Wt %
9.79%
13.84%
17.18%
21.81%
25.26%
30.91%
100.00%

104

Pb
0.00%
86.39%

pH
9.26
8.24
8.03
8.12
8.15
8.22
8.28
8.33
7.86
8.30

S
32.86%
13.58%

Last
Eh
0.00
-13.00
-10.00
1.00
3.00
8.00
9.00
12.00
-8.00
10.00

Cu
0.00%
0.00%

Temp
21.90
22.20
22.30
22.50
22.80
23.10
23.30
23.60
23.70
24.50

0.034
34.15

Results
S%
22.048
24.429
24.591
22.068
14.250
15.090
0.890
6.951
7.590

Fe %
8.795
9.868
10.021
11.718
7.950
9.420
3.660
5.473
5.490

Cu %
0.307
0.221
0.200
0.116
0.036
0.017
0.004
0.056
0.055

Zn %
36.341
40.195
39.713
32.484
17.380
17.220
0.930
10.233
10.520

Ag %
0.043
0.031
0.024
0.020
0.008
0.008
0.002
0.009
0.008

Pb %
21.347
13.496
12.456
5.808
1.800
0.810
0.160
3.540
3.520

SiO2 %
5.017
5.321
5.903
13.229
26.600
26.400
54.200
41.370
44.800

Stream

Time

Feed
C1

0.50

M1
C2

1.00

M2
C3

2.00

M3
C4

4.00

M4
C5

8.00

M
C6
Tailings

16.00

Solids
Recovery
%

Zn %

Pb %

Cu
%

S%

Sph %

Gn %

Ccp %

NSG %

Sph
Rec

Gn
Rec

Ccp
Rec

NSG Rec

100.0%

10.51

3.53

0.06

6.97

17.66

4.09

0.17

78.08

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

9.6%

34.97

21.15

0.33

21.48

58.75

24.48

0.95

15.82

31.8%

57.2%

53.3%

1.9%

90.5%

7.93

1.67

0.03

5.44

13.32

1.94

0.09

84.65

68.2%

42.8%

46.7%

98.1%

Sph Cum
Rec

Gn Cum
Rec

Ccp Cum
Rec

NSG Cum
Rec

31.8%

57.2%

53.3%

1.9%

45.6%

73.5%

69.9%

2.8%

60.5%

86.4%

83.2%

4.4%

70.8%

93.4%

91.3%

7.2%

80.1%

95.5%

93.6%

10.5%

3.8%

38.38

15.17

0.26

23.63

64.48

17.55

0.74

17.23

13.9%

16.3%

16.6%

0.8%

86.7%

6.59

1.08

0.02

4.64

11.08

1.25

0.06

87.61

54.4%

26.5%

30.1%

97.2%

4.4%

35.06

10.25

0.18

22.67

58.90

11.86

0.51

28.73

14.8%

12.9%

13.3%

1.6%

82.2%

5.06

0.59

0.01

3.67

8.50

0.68

0.03

90.79

39.5%

13.6%

16.8%

95.6%

4.3%

25.46

5.77

0.11

17.91

42.77

6.67

0.32

50.24

10.4%

7.0%

8.0%

2.8%

77.9%

3.93

0.30

0.01

2.88

6.61

0.35

0.02

93.02

29.2%

6.6%

8.7%

92.8%

4.3%

22.60

1.78

0.03

11.31

37.97

2.06

0.09

59.88

9.2%

2.2%

2.3%

3.3%

73.6%

2.85

0.22

0.01

2.39

4.78

0.25

0.01

94.95

19.9%

4.5%

6.4%

89.5%

6.3%

13.77

0.91

0.02

12.23

23.14

1.05

0.05

75.76

8.3%

1.6%

1.8%

6.1%

88.3%

97.1%

95.4%

16.6%

67.3%

1.82

0.15

0.00

1.47

3.06

0.17

0.01

96.76

11.7%

2.9%

4.6%

83.4%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

105

iii.

Borta Bakom BB-T4 Bulk Rougher Kinetics

Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
d80
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Flotation Pulp Density (%)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Total (ml)
Total (g/t)

Product
Conc1 (0.0-0.5 min)
Conc2 (0.5-1.0 min)
Conc3 (1.0-2.0 min)
Conc4 (2.0 - 4.0 min)
Conc5 (4.0 - 8.0 min)
Conc6 (8.0 - 16.0 min )
Tailings
BackCalculated Feed
Analyzed Feed

1.4.2015
3
BB Kinetics
BB-T4
1027.5
10
60.00
100
7300
30.63%
1015.65
11.85
400.00

Sphalerite
Galena

Zn
60.83%
0.00%

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%

NasFroth

Reagents (ml)
Na Bisulpide

Acid

SIPX

2.20
0.40

1.00

Weight Solid (g)

52.20
29.34
33.23
29.17
32.02
44.74
794.95
1015.65

Fe
6.31%
0.00%

Time (m)
3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8

0.020

0.016
0.40

0.50

3.000
118.15

1.500
36.92

Weight (%)
5.14%
2.89%
3.27%
2.87%
3.15%
4.41%
78.27%

Cum Wt %
5.14%
8.03%
11.30%
14.17%
17.32%
21.73%
100.00%

106

Pb
0.00%
86.39%

S-Cd
32.86%
13.58%

Cu
0.00%
0.00%

pH
8.96
8.35
7.99
8.07
8.10
8.15
8.21
8.30
7.97
8.30

Last
Eh
-34.00
-29.00
-14.00
-10.00
-8.00
-5.00
0.00
-24.00
-8.00

Temp
21.40
21.80
21.90
22.00
22.10
22.40
22.70
22.80
22.80
23.60

0.036
35.45

Results
S%
20.417
21.620
19.911
16.449
8.240
6.080
0.660
3.842
4.710

Fe %
7.483
8.497
9.165
9.971
5.890
6.050
4.000
4.799
4.680

Cu %
0.097
0.081
0.066
0.050
0.014
0.007
0.002
0.013
0.009

Zn %
34.276
35.586
30.608
23.474
12.770
9.410
0.900
5.987
6.490

Ag %
0.080
0.036
0.027
0.017
0.006
0.006
0.000
0.007
0.005

Pb %
21.979
15.476
10.351
6.940
2.500
1.770
0.240
2.459
3.020

SiO2 %
8.275
9.964
16.388
23.884
42.700
47.900
62.500
54.310
55.800

Stream

Time

Feed
C1

0.50

M1
C2

1.00

M2
C3

2.00

M3
C4

4.00

M4
C5

8.00

M
C6
Tailings

16.00

Solids
Recovery%

Zn %

Pb %

Cu %

S%

Sph %

Gn %

Ccp
%

NSG
%

Sph Rec

Gn Rec

Ccp Rec

NSG Rec

100.0%

5.99

2.46

0.01

3.84

9.84

2.85

0.04

87.27

100.00%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

5.1%

34.28

21.98

0.10

20.42

56.35

25.44

0.28

17.93

29.43%

45.9%

37.7%

1.1%

94.9%

4.45

1.40

0.01

2.94

7.32

1.62

0.03

91.03

70.57%

54.1%

62.3%

98.9%

2.9%

35.59

15.48

0.08

21.62

58.50

17.91

0.23

23.35

17.18%

18.2%

17.7%

0.8%

92.0%

3.48

0.96

0.01

2.36

5.71

1.11

0.02

93.16

53.39%

35.9%

44.6%

98.2%

3.3%

30.61

10.35

0.07

19.91

50.32

11.98

0.19

37.51

16.72%

13.8%

16.3%

1.4%

88.7%

2.48

0.61

0.00

1.71

4.07

0.71

0.01

95.21

36.67%

22.1%

28.3%

96.8%

2.9%

23.47

6.94

0.05

16.45

38.59

8.03

0.14

53.23

11.25%

8.1%

10.8%

1.8%

85.8%

1.77

0.40

0.00

1.22

2.91

0.46

0.01

96.61

25.42%

14.0%

17.5%

95.0%

3.2%

12.77

2.50

0.01

8.24

20.99

2.89

0.04

76.07

6.72%

3.2%

3.3%

2.7%

82.7%

1.35

0.32

0.00

0.95

2.23

0.37

0.01

97.40

18.70%

10.8%

14.2%

92.3%

4.4%

9.41

1.77

0.01

6.08

15.47

2.05

0.02

82.46

6.93%

3.2%

2.3%

78.3%

0.90

0.24

0.00

0.66

1.48

0.28

0.01

98.24

11.77%

7.6%

11.8%

107

Sph Cum
Rec

Gn Cum
Rec

Ccp Cum
Rec

NSG Cum
Rec

29.4%

45.9%

37.7%

1.1%

46.6%

64.1%

55.4%

1.8%

63.3%

77.9%

71.7%

3.2%

74.6%

86.0%

82.5%

5.0%

81.3%

89.2%

85.8%

7.7%

4.2%

88.2%

92.4%

88.2%

11.9%

88.1%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

iv.

Mellanby M-T4-6 Combined Bulk Rougher Kinetics

Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
d80 (micrometer)
Initila Total Cell Weight (g)
Flotation Pulp Density
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Reagent Total (ml)
Reagent Total (g/ton)

Product
Conc1 (0.0-0.5 min)
Conc2 (0.5-1.0 min)
Conc3 (1.0-2.0 min)
Conc4 (2.0 - 4.0 min)
Conc5 (4.0 - 8.0 min)
Conc6 (8.0 - 16.0 min )
Tailings
BackCalculated Feed
Feed

26.3.2015
1
Mellanby Kinetics
M-T4
1005.1
10
60.00
105
7260.00
30.32%
993.90
11.21
300.00

Na Bisulpide

Acid

2.500
0.500

Weight Solid (g)

31.36
17.17
21.09
21.95
33.32
46.94
822.08
993.90

Sphalerite
Galena

Zn
59.60%
0.00%

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%

Reagents (ml)
SIPX

Fe
7.54%
0.00%

Time (m)

NasFroth

1.000

3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8

0.020

0.012
0.500

0.500

3.500
139.290

1.500
37.310

Weight (%)
3.16%
1.73%
2.12%
2.21%
3.35%
4.72%
82.71%

Pb
0.00%
86.39%

S
32.86%
13.58%

Cu
0.00%
0.00%

pH
9.19
8.12
8.01
8.29
8.19
8.23
8.25
8.29
7.95
8.33

Last
Eh
10.00
10.00
19.00
19.00
23.00
24.00
23.00
10.00
24.00

Temp
21.70
22.00
22.50
22.50
22.50
22.00
22.10
23.90
22.90
24.70

0.032
31.84

Cum Wt %
3.16%
4.88%
7.00%
9.21%
12.56%
17.29%
100.00%

108

Results
S%
20.954
22.167
21.137
18.509
11.760
6.590
2.240
4.459
4.60

Fe %
8.74
9.40
10.51
11.30
7.32
6.83
5.17
5.75
5.65

Cu %
0.21
0.16
0.13
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04

Zn %
34.71
36.53
32.82
27.41
17.85
9.65
2.99
6.55
7.13

Ag %
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
83.90

Pb %
20.23
15.11
9.39
6.15
1.78
1.22
0.17
1.49
1.74

SiO2 %
7.69
8.56
13.94
19.79
33.50
45.50
54.10
49.14
38.50

Stream

Time

Feed
C1

0.50

M1
C2

1.00

M2
C3

2.00

M3
C4

4.00

M4
C5

8.00

M
C6
Tailings

16.00

Solids
Recovery%

Zn %

Pb %

Cu
%

S%

Sph %

Gn %

Ccp
%

NSG
%

Sph Rec

Gn Rec

Ccp Rec

NSG Rec

100.0%

6.56

1.49

0.03

4.46

11.00

1.73

0.10

87.17

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

3.2%

34.71

20.23

0.21

20.95

58.23

23.42

0.61

17.74

16.7%

42.8%

20.2%

0.6%

96.8%

5.64

0.88

0.03

3.92

9.46

1.02

0.08

89.44

83.3%

57.2%

79.8%

99.4%

1.7%

36.53

15.11

0.16

22.17

61.30

17.49

0.46

20.75

9.6%

17.5%

8.3%

0.4%

95.1%

5.08

0.62

0.02

3.59

8.52

0.72

0.07

90.69

73.6%

39.7%

71.5%

98.9%

2.1%

32.82

9.39

0.13

21.14

55.07

10.87

0.36

33.70

10.6%

13.3%

8.0%

0.8%

93.0%

4.44

0.42

0.02

3.19

7.46

0.49

0.07

91.99

63.0%

26.4%

63.5%

98.1%

2.2%

27.41

6.15

0.09

18.51

45.99

7.12

0.26

46.62

9.2%

9.1%

6.1%

1.2%

90.8%

3.88

0.28

0.02

2.82

6.52

0.33

0.06

93.09

53.8%

17.3%

57.5%

96.9%

3.4%

17.85

1.78

0.03

11.76

29.95

2.06

0.08

67.91

9.1%

4.0%

2.8%

2.6%

87.4%

3.35

0.23

0.02

2.47

5.62

0.26

0.06

94.06

44.7%

13.3%

54.6%

94.3%

4.7%

9.65

1.22

0.02

6.59

16.19

1.41

0.05

82.35

6.9%

3.9%

2.3%

82.7%

2.99

0.17

0.02

2.24

5.02

0.20

0.06

94.73

37.7%

9.4%

52.4%

109

Sph Cum
Rec

Gn Cum
Rec

Ccp Cum
Rec

NSG Cum
Rec

16.7%

42.8%

20.2%

0.6%

26.4%

60.3%

28.5%

1.1%

37.0%

73.6%

36.5%

1.9%

46.2%

82.7%

42.5%

3.1%

55.3%

86.7%

45.4%

5.7%

4.5%

62.3%

90.6%

47.6%

10.1%

89.9%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

v.

3102- Plant Sep Sample Seperation Kinetics

Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
d80
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Flotation Pulp Density (%)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conc 6
Total (ml)
Total (g/t)

Product
Conc1
Conc2
Conc3
Conc4
Conc5
Conc6
Tailings
Back Calculated Feed
Feed

7.4.2015
No
Plant Kinetics
3102
604.3
0.75
60.00
64
6900
20.45%
601.10
3.20
350.00

Sphalerite
Galena

Zn
61.65%
0.00%

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%

Reagents (ml)
Na Bisulpide

Acid

SIPX

0.50

0.60

0.50
399.27

Weight Solid (g)

28.86
32.75
47.24
60.57
55.46
48.86
327.36
601.1

Weight (%)
4.80%
5.45%
7.86%
10.08%
9.23%
8.13%
54.46%

NasFroth

Fe
5.49%
0.00%

Time (m)
3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
10

0.010

0.014

0.600
24.95

Cum Wt %
4.80%
10.25%
18.11%
28.18%
37.41%
45.54%
100.00%

S-Cd
32.86%
13.06%

Cu
0.00%
0.00%

pH
7.43
7.47
7.61
7.66
7.71
7.80
7.90
8.02
8.10

Last
Eh
35.00
30.00
25.00
34.00
36.00
40.00
41.00
43.00
44.00

Temp
21.00
21.20
21.30
21.30
21.40
21.40
21.40
22.00
22.80

0.024
39.93

S%
17.80
18.18
19.02
19.00
21.66
24.15
29.13
25.080
NA

110

Pb
0.00%
86.39%

Fe %
4.24
4.00
4.24
4.52
5.50
6.40
5.40
5.178
3.01

Cu %
0.15
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.11
0.04
0.01
0.064
0.50

Zn %
17.96
19.11
22.50
33.75
38.46
41.98
54.05
43.469
39.14

Ag %
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.036
0.04

Pb %
54.11
53.46
48.54
36.49
26.66
17.28
2.32
18.130
2.00

SiO2 %
1.80
1.79
2.02
2.34
3.02
4.35
4.62
3.726
1.49

Stream

Time

Feed
C1

0.50

M1
C2

1.00

M2
C3

2.00

M3
C4

4.00

M4
C5

8.00

M
C6
Tailings

18.00

Solids
Recovery%

Zn %

Pb %

Cu
%

S%

Sph %

Gn %

Ccp
%

NSG
%

Sph Rec

Gn Rec

Ccp
Rec
100.0
%

NSG
Rec
100.0
%

Sph Cum
Rec

Gn Cum
Rec

Ccp Cum
Rec

NSG Cum
Rec

100.0%

43.47

18.13

0.06

7.64

70.51

20.99

0.18

8.31

100.0%

100.0%

4.8%

17.96

54.11

0.15

21.64

29.12

62.63

0.44

7.81

2.0%

14.3%

11.4%

4.5%

2.0%

14.3%

11.4%

4.5%

95.2%

44.76

16.32

0.06

6.94

72.60

18.89

0.17

8.34

98.0%

85.7%

88.6%

95.5%

5.5%

19.11

53.46

0.17

24.47

30.99

61.88

0.48

6.64

2.4%

16.1%

14.3%

4.4%

4.4%

30.4%

25.7%

8.9%

89.8%

46.32

14.06

0.05

5.87

75.13

16.28

0.15

8.44

95.6%

69.6%

74.3%

91.1%

7.9%

22.50

48.54

0.17

23.53

36.49

56.18

0.49

6.83

4.1%

21.0%

20.8%

6.5%

8.4%

51.4%

46.5%

15.3%

81.9%

48.60

10.76

0.04

4.18

78.84

12.45

0.12

8.59

91.6%

48.6%

53.5%

84.7%

10.1%

33.75

36.49

0.17

71.8%

50.69

7.14

0.02

20.06

54.75

42.24

0.50

2.51

7.8%

20.3%

27.4%

3.0%

16.3%

71.7%

73.9%

18.4%

1.95

82.22

8.27

0.07

9.45

83.7%

28.3%

26.1%

81.6%

9.2%

38.46

26.66

0.11

10.25

62.38

30.86

0.32

6.44

8.2%

13.6%

16.1%

7.1%

24.4%

85.3%

89.9%

25.5%

62.6%

52.49

4.26

0.01

0.72

85.14

4.94

0.03

9.89

75.6%

14.7%

10.1%

74.5%

8.1%

41.98

17.28

0.04

3.70

68.10

20.00

0.12

11.78

7.9%

7.7%

5.1%

11.5%

32.3%

93.0%

95.0%

37.0%

54.5%

54.05

2.32

0.01

0.28

87.67

2.69

0.02

9.63

67.7%

7.0%

5.0%

63.1%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.1%

111

Appendix 4.3 Optimization flotation test report and results

1. Longer Grinding Time
Orebody

Initial Test

Product

Longer Grinding Time

Rec Comparison

Weight

Sph Grade

Sph Loss

Gn Grade

Gn Loss

Weight

Sph Grade

Sph Loss

Gn Grade

Gn Loss

Sph Rec 1

Sph Rec 2

Borta Bakom

Tailings

78.27%

1.48%

11.77%

0.28%

7.64%

77.21%

1.78%

13.93%

0.26%

6.99%

88.23%

86.07%

Savsjon

Tailings

66.99%

2.47%

9.31%

0.17%

2.84%

68.50%

2.40%

9.26%

0.16%

2.74%

90.69%

90.74%

Mellanby

Tailings

82.71%

5.02%

37.73%

0.20%

9.42%

78.12%

4.14%

29.44%

0.16%

7.33%

62.27%

70.56%

a. Borta Bakom Test

Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)

17.6.2015
NA
BB Longer Grinding
BB-T21
987.2
13
60.00%
7300
977.32
9.88
500.00

Na Bisulpide

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Acid

Reagents (ml)
SIPX

Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%

NasFroth

1.50
0.20
0.30

1.00

0.20

0.50

0.01

2.20
90

1.50
38

0.05
51

0.02

112

Time (m)
2
3
2
8
2
8

pH
8.70
8.00
8.01
7.97
8.17
8.04
8.19

End Stage
Eh

Temp

Results
Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)

Weight Solid (g)

176.46
46.26
754.60
977.32

Weight (%)
18.06%
4.73%
77.21%
100.00%

Cum Wt %
18.06%
22.79%
100.00%

Zn%
27.75%
3.08%
1.08%
5.99%

Pb%
12.10%
2.23%
0.22%
2.46%

Cu%
0.04%
0.09%
0.002%
0.013%

Fe %
8.01%
4.46%
4.07%
4.80%

S%
17.65%
2.71%
0.680%
3.84%

End Stage
Eh

Temp

Fe %
10.13%
23.26%
3.81%
6.65%

S%
19.77%
24.28%
0.00%
6.52%

b. Savsjon Test
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage

17.6.2015
NA
Savsjon Longer Grinding
S-T20
993.7
13
60.00%
7300
983.35
10.35
500.00

CuSO4

Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)

Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)

Weight Solid (g)

246.15
63.59
673.61
983.35

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Concentration by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%

Reagents (ml)
Acid
SIPX
2.00
0.50
0.40

1.00

0.30

0.80

3.20
130

1.80
46

Weight (%)
25.03%
6.47%
68.50%
100.00%

Cum Wt %
25.03%
31.50%
100.00%

NasFroth

0.02

Time (m)
2
3
2
8
2
4

pH
9.04
8.15
8.08
7.98
8.21
8.02
8.20

Pb%
12.40%
5.26%
0.14%
3.54%

Cu%
0.21%
0.08%
0.003%
0.060%

0.04
41
Results

113

Zn%
32.24%
23.66%
1.43%
10.58%

c. Mellanby Test
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Conditioning
Conditioning
Conc 1
Conc 2
Conc 3
Conc 4
Conc 5
Conditioning
Conc 6
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)

Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Analyzed)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)

6.4.2015
1
Mellanby Longer Grinding
M-T7
979.3
13
60.00
7270
956.55
22.75
420.00

Na Bisulpide
-

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Conc. by
Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%

SIPX

NasFroth

Reagents (ml)
Acid
0.50
0.10

1.00
0.020

0.017
0.10

0.50

0.70
29

1.50
39

Weight Solid (g)

146.29
62.99
747.27
956.55

Weight (%)
15.29%
6.59%
78.12%
100.00%

Last
Eh
0.00
-11.00
-12.00
-1.00
3.00
2.00
7.00
15.00
-8.00
12.00

Temp
21.80
22.00
22.20
22.30
22.40
22.50
22.60
22.90
22.90
23.40

Pb %
9.10%
0.750
0.140
1.49%

Cu %
0.12%
0.011
0.003
0.030%

Fe %
9.20%
7.120
5.360
5.25%

S%
18.27%
8.780
1.570
4.46%

0.05
56

Results
Cum Wt %
Zn %
15.29%
28.86%
21.88%
14.170
100.00%
2.470
6.55%

114

3
2
0.5
0.5
1
2
4
1.5
8

pH
9.19
8.25
8.04
8.10
8.14
8.19
8.26
8.31
7.95
8.29

Time (m)

2. Increased Collector
Orebody

Initial Test

Product

Collector Increase

Rec Comparison

Weight

Sph Grade

Sph Loss

Gn Grade

Gn Loss

Weight

Sph Grade

Sph Loss

Gn Grade

Gn Loss

Sph Rec 1

Sph Rec 2

Borta Bakom

Tailings

78.27%

1.48%

11.77%

0.28%

7.64%

72.35%

1.61%

11.84%

0.26%

6.55%

88.23%

88.16%

Savsjon

Tailings

66.99%

2.47%

9.31%

0.17%

2.84%

60.74%

3.02%

10.33%

0.15%

2.26%

90.69%

89.67%

Mellanby

Tailings

82.71%

5.02%

37.73%

0.20%

9.42%

70.92%

4.48%

28.89%

0.15%

6.25%

62.27%

71.11%

a. Borta Bakom Test

Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 1
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 2
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 3
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)

19.5.2015
NA
BB Collector
BB-T20
985.3
10
60.00%
7300
975.45
9.85
500.00

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Conc. by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%

Reagents (ml)
Na Bisulpide

Acid

SIPX

1.50
0.30
0.20

1.00

0.30

0.50

NasFroth

0.02

0.50

2.30
94

0.50

0.01

2.50
64

0.05
51

115

Time (m)
2
3
2
8
2
4
2
4
2
4

pH
8.74
8.07
8.06
7.99
8.20
7.97
8.13
8.15
8.21
8.23
8.25

End Stage
Eh
26.00
19.00
-12.00
-13.00
13.00
-14.00
5.00
-14.00
1.00
-14.00
5.00

Temp
22.80
22.30
23.10
23.20
23.50
23.60
23.90
23.90
23.90
24.00
24.10

Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)

Weight Solid (g)

174.83
66.33
734.29
975.45

Weight (%)
17.92%
6.80%
75.28%
100.00%

Cum Wt %
17.92%
24.72%
100.00%

Results
Zn%
27.75%
4.10%
0.98%
5.99%

Pb%
12.10%
1.85%
0.22%
2.46%

Cu%
0.04%
0.07%
0.002%
0.013%

Fe %
8.01%
6.30%
4.02%
4.89%

S%
17.65%
3.20%
0.610%
3.84%

b. Savsjon Test
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 1
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 2
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 3
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)

Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)

10.6.2015
NA
Savsjon Collector
S-T21
1013.6
13
60.00%
7300
1003.46
10.14
500.00

CuSO4

0.30
0.3

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Acid

Reagents (ml)
SIPX

2.00
0.50
0.35

1.00

0.30

0.50

0.3

Conc. by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%

NasFroth

0.02

0.50

0.02

0.50

0.01
0.07
70

3.15
126

2.50
62

Weight Solid (g)

260.15
80.76
662.55
1003.46

Weight (%)
25.93%
8.05%
66.03%
100.00%

Cum Wt %
25.93%
33.97%
100.00%

116

Results
Zn%
32.24%
12.84%
1.80%
10.58%

Time (m)
2
3
2
8
2
4
2
4
2
5

pH
9.00
8.06
8.05
7.94
8.23
7.94
8.15
8.19
8.22
8.24
8.24

Pb%
12.40%
2.97%
0.13%
3.54%

Cu%
0.21%
0.04%
0.004%
0.060%

End Stage
Eh
51.00
11.00
10.00
30.00
7.00
26.00
6.00
22.00
10.00
20.00

Temp
23.50
23.60
23.80
23.90
24.30
25.10
25.30
25.30
25.40
25.40
25.50

Fe %
10.13%
11.93%
4.64%
6.65%

S%
19.77%
6.17%
1.36%
6.52%

c. Mellanby Test
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 1
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 2
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 3
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)

Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)

11.6.2015
NA
Mellanby Collector
M-T12
1011.9
10
60.00%
7300
1001.78
10.12
500.00

Na Bisulpide

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Reagents (ml)
Acid
SIPX
2.00
0.60
0.40

1.00

0.40

0.50

Conc. by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%

NasFroth

0.02

0.50
0.50

0.01
0.05
50

3.40
136

2.50
62

Weight Solid (g)

145.72
69.62
786.44
1001.78

Weight (%)
14.55%
6.95%
78.50%
100.00%

Cum Wt %
14.55%
21.50%
100.00%

117

Results
Zn%
28.86%
8.65%
2.67%
6.55%

Time (m)
2
3
2
8
2
4
2
4
2
5

pH
9.01
8.10
8.07
7.98
8.25
7.98
8.19
8.20
8.25
8.27
8.28

Pb%
9.10%
0.92%
0.13%
1.49%

Cu%
0.12%
0.15%
0.00%
0.030%

End Stage
Eh
36.00
-14.00
-17.00
8.00
-10.00
6.00
-9.00
2.00
-11.00
2.00

Temp
23.40
23.50
23.70
23.80
24.40
24.50
24.60
24.60
24.70
24.70
24.80

Fe %
8.20%
8.56%
4.41%
5.25%

S%
18.27%
7.18%
1.66%
4.46%

3. CuSO4 Usage
Orebody

Initial Test

Product

CuSO4

Rec Comparison

Weight

Sph Grade

Sph Loss

Gn Grade

Gn Loss

Weight

Sph Grade

Sph Loss

Gn Grade

Gn Loss

Sph Rec 1

Sph Rec 2

Borta Bakom

Tailings

78.27%

1.48%

11.77%

0.28%

7.64%

75.28%

0.20%

1.51%

0.19%

4.95%

88.23%

98.49%

Savsjon

Tailings

66.99%

2.47%

9.31%

0.17%

2.84%

66.03%

0.42%

1.56%

0.21%

3.40%

90.69%

98.44%

Mellanby

Tailings

82.71%

5.02%

37.73%

0.20%

9.42%

78.50%

0.23%

1.68%

0.21%

9.58%

62.27%

98.32%

a. Borta Bakom Test

Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 1
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 2
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 3
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)

12.6.2015
NA
BB CuSO4
BB-T22
993.6
10
60.00%
7300
983.66
9.94
500.00

CuSO4

0.30
0.3

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Conc. by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%

SIPX

NasFroth

Reagents (ml)
Acid
1.50
0.20
0.30

1.00

0.10

0.50

0.01

0.50

0.01

0.50

0.01

2.50
64

0.07
71

0.02

0.3
-

2.10
85

118

Time (m)
2
3
2
8
3
4
3
4
3
4

pH
8.73
8.03
8.10
8.00
8.23
8.02
8.16
8.09
8.14
8.02
8.13

End Stage
Eh
32.00
-29.00
-27.00
-5.00
-14.00
-4.00
-9.00
2.00
2.00
19.00

Temp
22.80
22.90
23.10
23.20
24.10
24.20
24.40
24.50
24.70
24.80
24.90

Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)

Weight Solid (g)

172.28
99.71
711.67
983.66

Weight (%)
17.51%
10.14%
72.35%
100.00%

Cum Wt %
17.51%
27.65%
100.00%

Results
Zn%
27.75%
10.29%
0.12%
5.99%

Pb%
12.10%
2.22%
0.16%
2.46%

Cu %
0.040%
0.021%
0.005%
0.013%

Fe %
8.01%
9.39%
3.38%
4.80%

S%
17.65%
5.89%
0.21%
3.84%

b. Savsjon Test
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 1
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 2
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 3
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)

12.6.2015
NA
Savsjon CuSO4

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

S-T22
995.7
10
60.00%
7300
985.74
9.96
500.00

CuSO4

0.30
0.3

Reagents (ml)
Acid
SIPX
2.00
0.30
0.20

1.00

0.20

0.50

0.3
-

2.70
110

Conc. by
Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
100.00%

NasFroth

0.02

0.50

0.02

0.50

0.01

2.50
63

0.07
71

119

Time (m)
2
3
2
8
3
4
4
4
4
6

pH
8.98
8.02
8.03
8.00
8.27
8.03
8.18
8.10
8.19
8.08
8.20

End Stage
Eh
7.00
25.00
-12.00
-12.00
10.00
-8.00
4.00
-9.00
2.00
7.00
25.00

Temp
23.10
23.20
23.30
23.40
24.60
24.70
24.60
24.70
24.90
25.00
24.80

Product
Concentrate (Inital Test Res)
Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)

Weight Solid (g)

263.89
123.09
598.76
985.74

Weight (%)
26.77%
12.49%
60.74%
100.00%

Cum Wt %
26.77%
39.26%
100.00%

Results
Zn%
32.24%
14.39%
0.25%
10.58%

Pb%
12.40%
0.89%
0.18%
3.54%

Cu %
0.21%
0.01%
0.004%
0.060%

Fe %
10.13%
6.34%
5.18%
6.65%

S%
19.77%
8.86%
0.20%
6.52%

c. Mellanby Test
Date of Procedure
Recording
Test Name
Sample Name
Initial Weight (g)
Grinding Time (m)
Grinding Solid %
Initial Total Cell Weight (g)
Product Total (g)
Solid Loss (g)
Froth Water (ml)
Stage
Initial
Coniditoning (pH regulation)
Conditioning (Collector)
Conditioning (Frother)
Rougher Conc
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 1
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 2
Conditioning
Scavenger Conc 3
Total Reagent (ml)
Total Reagent (g/ton)

11.6.2015
NA
Mellanby CuSO4
M-T9
1011.9
10
60.00%
7300
1001.78
10.12
500.00

Na Bisulpide

Reagents
SIPX
Sulfuric Acid
NasFroth
Na Bisulfite

Reagents (ml)
Acid
SIPX
2.00
0.60
0.40

1.00

0.40

0.50

Conc. by Wt
2.50%
4.00%
100.00%
40.00%

NasFroth

0.02

0.50

Product

Weight Solid (g)

Concentrate (Inital Test Res)

Middlings (Back Calc)
Tailings (Analyzed)
Feed (Analyzed)

145.72
69.62
786.44
1001.78

3.40
136
Weight
(%)
14.55%
6.95%
78.50%

0.50

0.01

2.50
62

0.05
50
Results

Time (m)
2
3
2
8
2
4
2
4
2
5

pH
9.01
8.10
8.07
7.98
8.25
7.98
8.19
8.20
8.25
8.27
8.28

End Stage
Eh
36.00
-14.00
-17.00
8.00
-10.00
6.00
-9.00
2.00
-11.00
2.00

Temp
23.40
23.50
23.70
23.80
24.40
24.50
24.60
24.60
24.70
24.70
24.80

Cum Wt %

Zn%

Pb%

Cu%

Fe %

S%

14.55%
21.50%
100.00%

28.86%
32.26%
0.14%
6.55%

9.10%
0.36%
0.18%
1.49%

0.12%
0.13%
0.004%
0.030%

9.20%
11.78%
3.94%
5.25%

18.27%
24.13%
0.16%
4.46%

120

Appendix 4.4 Kinetic Models

1. Reference
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.57
0.41524666
0.01475334
1.57176812
0.34252035

A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.62
0.33186872
0.04813128
2.21052756
0.28503109

A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.46
0.451336228
0.087663772
1.542941823
0.258018878

A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.01067574
0.653810173
0.335514089
5.616897442
0.012500447

121

2. Borta Bakom
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.47
0.401988625
0.128011375
1.460623561
0.292884897

A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.64
0.276726243
0.083273758
2.047310569
0.379191697

A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.55
0.32801
0.12199
1.663279
0.424317

A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.017558
0.191487
0.790955
0.849133
0.04707

122

3. Savsjon
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.48
0.43344681
0.08655319
1.74269796
0.21719904

A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.72
0.24972391
0.03027611
2.35481352
0.43281031

A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.63
0.30441468
0.06558532
1.95185044
0.43922013

A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.02286075
0.30057224
0.67656702
0.91857619
0.03927875

123

4. Mellanby
A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.26
0.375188505
0.360811497
1.411246908
0.189340163

A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.6
0.300163915
0.099836086
2.013879739
0.334442269

A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.285
0.190669986
0.524330015
1.847218211
0.305807261

A*(1-exp(-D*X))+B*(1-exp(-E*X))+0*C
A: m Fast
B: m Slow
C: m Non-Float
D: k Fast
E: k Slow

0.011
0.989000137
8.21752E-12
0.578417879
0.005871254

124

Appendix 4.5 Kinetic Model Validations

i.

Reference
Reference

Experimental Results

Kinetic Model Simulation Results

Product

Sp %

Sp Rec

Sp Cum Rec

Sp %

Sp Rec

Sp Cum Rec

C1

62.32

37.69%

37.69%

62.15

37.57%

37.57%

C2

69.98

19.34%

57.03%

69.94

19.65%

57.22%

C3

66.60

17.94%

74.97%

67.19

17.93%

75.14%

C4

51.82

13.13%

88.10%

51.15

12.73%

87.87%

C5

31.51

7.81%

95.91%

28.36

7.96%

95.83%

C6

6.15

2.34%

98.24%

6.88

2.50%

98.33%

Tailings

0.36

1.76%

100.00%

0.34

1.67%

100.00%

Reference

Experimental Results

Kinetic Model Simulation Results

Product

Gn %

Gn Rec

Gn Cum Rec

Gn %

Gn Rec

Gn Cum Rec

C1

24.66

46.74%

46.74%

24.19

45.88%

45.88%

C2

17.13

14.83%

61.58%

19.92

17.55%

63.44%

C3

17.58

14.85%

76.42%

14.62

12.24%

75.68%

C4

10.91

8.66%

85.09%

11.39

8.89%

84.57%

C5

7.98

6.20%

91.28%

8.21

7.23%

91.80%

C6

3.11

3.71%

94.99%

2.68

3.05%

94.85%

Tailings

0.32

5.01%

100.00%

0.33

5.15%

100.00%

Correlation Coefficient r for Sphalerite = 0.99997

Correlation Coefficient r for Galena = 0.99848
Correlation plot and R square values are shared in thesis.

ii.

Borta Bakom

Borta Bakom

Experimental Results

Kinetic Model Simulation Results

Product

Sp %

Sp Rec

Sp Cum Rec

Sp %

Sp Rec

Sp Cum Rec

C1

56.35

29.43%

29.43%

56.92

29.84%

29.84%

C2

58.50

17.18%

46.61%

56.97

16.47%

46.30%

C3

50.32

16.72%

63.33%

53.18

15.99%

62.29%

C4

38.59

11.25%

74.58%

42.26

12.32%

74.61%

C5

20.99

6.72%

81.30%

26.36

8.73%

83.34%

C6

15.47

6.93%

88.23%

8.57

3.49%

86.83%

Tailings

1.48

11.77%

100.00%

1.64

13.17%

100.00%

125

Borta Bakom

Experimental Results

Kinetic Model Simulation Results

Product

Gn %

Gn Rec

Gn Cum Rec

Gn %

Gn Rec

Gn Cum Rec

C1

25.44

45.94%

45.94%

25.30

45.78%

45.78%

C2

17.91

18.19%

64.12%

18.73

18.69%

64.47%

C3

11.98

13.76%

77.89%

12.69

13.18%

77.65%

C4

8.03

8.10%

85.99%

7.90

7.95%

85.60%

C5

2.89

3.20%

89.19%

4.17

4.76%

90.36%

C6

2.05

3.17%

92.36%

0.90

1.27%

91.64%

Tailings

0.28

7.64%

100.00%

0.30

8.36%

100.00%

Borta Bakom Experimental vs Kinetic Model Cum Recovery

Experimetnal Mineral Cum Rec

100.00%
90.00%

Cum Sph
Rec

R = 0.997

80.00%
R = 0.9986

70.00%

Cum Gn
Rec

60.00%
Linear
(Cum Sph
Rec)

50.00%
40.00%
30.00%

20.00%
20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%

Linear
(Cum Gn
Rec)

Kinetic Model Simulation Mineral Cum Rec

Correlation Coefficient r for Sphalerite = 0.99851

Correlation Coefficient r for Galena = 0.99929
iii.

Savsjon
Savsjon

Experimental Results

Kinetic Model Simulation Results

Product

Sp %

Sp Rec

Sp Cum Rec

Sp %

Sp Rec

Sp Cum Rec

C1

62.11

32.36%

32.36%

62.60

32.37%

32.37%

C2

64.18

15.53%

47.89%

62.28

15.67%

48.04%

C3

59.96

14.67%

62.56%

57.46

13.73%

61.77%

C4

42.47

10.80%

73.36%

48.18

11.30%

73.08%

C5

37.97

9.08%

82.44%

37.77

10.59%

83.67%

C6

23.14

8.25%

90.69%

19.41

6.29%

89.96%

Tailings

2.47

9.31%

100.00%

2.66

10.04%

100.00%

126

Savsjon

Experimental Results

Kinetic Model Simulation Results

Product

Gn %

Gn Rec

Gn Cum Rec

Gn %

Gn Rec

Gn Cum Rec

C1

24.51

55.35%

55.35%

24.40

54.69%

54.69%

C2

16.31

17.10%

72.45%

17.66

19.27%

73.95%

C3

13.01

13.80%

86.25%

11.47

11.88%

85.84%

C4

6.45

7.11%

93.36%

6.62

6.74%

92.57%

C5

2.03

2.11%

95.46%

3.00

3.65%

96.22%

C6

1.10

1.70%

97.16%

0.54

0.76%

96.98%

Tailings

0.17

2.84%

100.00%

0.18

3.02%

100.00%

Savsjon Experimental vs Kinetic Model Cum Recovery

Experimetnal Mineral Cum Rec

100.00%
Cum Sph
Rec

R = 0.9989

90.00%
80.00%

R = 0.997

70.00%

Cum Gn
Rec

60.00%
Linear
(Cum Sph
Rec)

50.00%
40.00%
30.00%

20.00%
20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00%

Linear
(Cum Gn
Rec)

Kinetic Model Simulation Mineral Cum Rec

Correlation Coefficient r for Sphalerite = 0.99943

Correlation Coefficient r for Galena = 0.99849
iv.

Mellanby
Mellanby

Experimental Results

Kinetic Model Simulation Results

Product

Sp %

Sp Rec

Sp Cum Rec

Sp %

Sp Rec

Sp Cum Rec

C1

58.23

16.73%

16.73%

58.20

16.74%

16.74%

C2

61.30

9.64%

26.37%

59.72

9.68%

26.42%

C3

55.07

10.61%

36.98%

56.19

10.21%

36.63%

C4

45.99

9.24%

46.22%

44.56

9.57%

46.20%

C5

29.95

9.12%

55.34%

31.18

9.43%

55.63%

C6

16.19

6.95%

62.28%

15.03

6.45%

62.08%

Tailings

5.02

37.72%

100.00%

5.05

37.92%

100.00%

127

Mellanby

Experimental Results

Kinetic Model Simulation Results

Product

Gn %

Gn Rec

Gn Cum Rec

Gn %

Gn Rec

Gn Cum Rec

C1

23.42

42.81%

42.81%

23.34

42.70%

42.70%

C2

17.49

17.50%

60.31%

17.30

17.82%

60.51%

C3

10.87

13.33%

73.63%

11.28

13.04%

73.55%

C4

7.12

9.10%

82.74%

6.26

8.54%

82.09%

C5

2.06

3.99%

86.73%

3.03

5.83%

87.93%

C6

1.41

3.86%

90.59%

0.71

1.93%

89.86%

Tailings

0.20

9.41%

100.00%

0.21

10.14%

100.00%

Mellanby Experimental vs Kinetic Model Cum Recovery

Experimetnal Mineral Cum Rec

100.00%
Cum Sph
Rec

90.00%
80.00%
70.00%

R = 0.9985

R = 0.9998

60.00%
50.00%

Linear
(Cum Sph
Rec)

40.00%
30.00%

Linear
(Cum Gn
Rec)

20.00%

10.00%
10.00%

Cum Gn
Rec

30.00%

50.00%

70.00%

Kinetic Model Simulation Mineral Cum Rec

Correlation Coefficient r for Sphalerite = 0.99992

Correlation Coefficient r for Galena = 0.99927

128

90.00%

Appendix 4.6 Plant Simulation

i.

Mass Balance Results (Flowsheet shared in the thesis)

Stream

Total Solids t/h Bal

Total Solids t/h Rec%

Zn % Meas

Zn % Bal

Zn % Rec%

Pb % Meas

Pb % Bal

Pb % Rec%

AGM Feed

145.00

100.00

7.96

7.99

100.00

3.50

3.33

100.00

Fresh Flotation Feed

145.00

100.00

7.99

100.00

3.33

100.00

Reground Feed

23.50

16.21

13.78

13.95

28.31

6.40

6.35

30.95

Rougher Conc

38.31

26.42

35.48

35.39

117.10

15.10

14.76

117.17

Scavenger Conc

9.83

6.78

6.65

6.53

5.55

3.55

3.57

7.28

Rougher Tail

130.19

89.79

0.90

1.00

11.21

0.55

0.51

13.78

Cleaner Tail

13.68

9.43

19.34

19.28

22.77

8.19

8.35

23.67

Bulk Concentrate

24.63

16.99

44.60

44.34

94.33

18.80

18.31

93.50

Tailings

120.36

83.01

0.62

0.55

5.67

0.21

0.26

6.50

Sep Feed

38.53

26.58

44.75

148.94

17.46

139.47

Reground Sep Feed

13.90

9.59

44.36

45.49

54.61

15.19

15.96

45.97

Sep Flot Conc

19.38

13.37

35.80

34.23

57.30

32.87

31.80

127.78

Zinc Concentrate

19.15

13.21

55.16

55.41

91.64

2.80

2.94

11.69

Lead Concentrate

5.49

3.78

5.40

5.68

2.69

71.47

71.95

81.81

129

ii.

Simulation Full Results by Separation Kinetics

130

Unit

Feed

BR
C1

BR
C2

BC
R3

BR
C4

Rougher
Conc

BS
C1

BS
C2

Tail

BC
C1

BC
C2

Bulk
Conc

Bulk
Midd

S
C1

S
C2

S
C3

Zinc
Conc

LC
C1

LCC2

Lead
Conc

Sep
Midd

t/h

145.0

21.5

8.8

5.7

3.3

39.3

5.0

4.3

120.0

31.9

30.3

25.0

23.5

21.8

9.8

4.7

18.3

18.2

15.4

6.7

29.5

Rec%

100.0

14.9

6.0

3.9

2.2

27.1

3.4

2.9

82.8

22.0

20.9

17.2

16.2

15.0

6.7

3.2

12.6

12.5

10.6

4.6

20.3

Zn

wt%

8.0

39.7

36.2

30.8

17.6

35.8

9.6

4.7

0.3

44.7

45.5

45.1

14.8

37.1

44.6

49.9

55.2

32.3

25.9

17.7

46.0

Cu

wt%

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.0

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.3

Pb

wt%

3.3

16.8

13.1

10.9

7.5

14.4

4.6

2.5

0.3

17.8

18.0

18.0

6.2

31.8

21.5

13.6

3.6

38.5

46.9

57.3

19.7

Fe

wt%

0.7

3.7

3.4

2.9

1.7

3.4

0.9

0.5

0.0

4.2

4.3

4.2

1.4

3.7

4.3

4.7

5.0

3.4

2.9

2.2

4.4

Parameter
Total
solids
Solids
Recovery

wt%

4.8

24.0

21.6

18.3

10.7

21.5

5.9

2.9

0.2

26.9

27.3

27.1

9.0

25.2

27.5

29.0

30.0

23.8

21.8

19.1

27.9

Cd

wt%

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ag

wt%

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Sp

wt%

13.0

64.4

58.8

50.0

28.6

58.1

15.5

7.6

0.4

72.5

73.8

73.2

23.9

60.1

72.3

80.9

89.5

52.3

42.1

28.7

74.6

Ccp

wt%

0.1

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.4

1.3

1.0

0.8

0.1

1.6

1.8

2.0

1.0

Gn

wt%

3.9

19.5

15.2

12.6

8.7

16.6

5.3

2.9

0.3

20.6

20.8

20.9

7.2

36.8

24.9

15.7

4.1

44.6

54.3

66.4

22.8

Gan

wt%

83.1

15.5

25.5

36.8

62.3

24.7

79.0

89.4

99.2

6.2

4.7

5.3

68.5

1.8

1.8

2.6

6.2

1.5

1.8

2.9

1.7

Zn

Rec%

100.0

73.9

27.4

15.1

5.0

121.4

4.1

1.7

2.8

123.0

119.2

97.2

30.0

69.6

37.5

20.3

87.0

50.6

34.4

10.3

117.1

Cu

Rec%

100.0

67.5

28.9

18.2

7.9

122.5

7.7

3.8

12.4

122.8

114.8

87.6

46.3

161.4

56.8

20.0

12.7

159.6

156.1

74.9

163.3

Pb

Rec%

100.0

75.2

23.8

12.8

5.0

116.8

4.7

2.2

6.7

117.6

113.0

93.3

30.4

143.1

43.5

13.3

13.5

144.9

149.2

79.8

120.1

Fe

Rec%

100.0

73.6

27.5

15.3

5.1

121.4

4.3

1.8

3.2

123.0

119.0

96.8

30.8

74.2

38.5

20.3

83.2

56.0

40.5

13.5

119.4

Rec%

100.0

74.0

27.0

14.9

5.0

120.9

4.2

1.8

3.3

122.4

118.5

96.7

30.2

78.4

38.4

19.5

78.3

61.8

47.9

18.4

117.8

Cd

Rec%

100.0

73.9

27.4

15.1

5.0

121.4

4.1

1.7

2.8

123.0

119.2

97.2

30.0

69.6

37.5

20.3

87.0

50.6

34.4

10.3

117.1

Ag

Rec%

100.0

75.2

23.8

12.8

5.0

116.8

4.7

2.2

6.7

117.6

113.0

93.3

30.4

143.1

43.5

13.3

13.5

144.9

149.2

79.8

120.1

Sp

Rec%

100.0

73.9

27.4

15.1

5.0

121.4

4.1

1.7

2.8

123.0

119.2

97.2

30.0

69.6

37.5

20.3

87.0

50.6

34.4

10.3

117.1

Ccp

Rec%

100.0

67.5

28.9

18.2

7.9

122.5

7.7

3.8

12.4

122.8

114.8

87.6

46.3

161.4

56.8

20.0

12.7

159.6

156.1

74.9

163.3

Gn

Rec%

100.0

75.2

23.8

12.8

5.0

116.8

4.7

2.2

6.7

117.6

113.0

93.3

30.4

143.1

43.5

13.3

13.5

144.9

149.2

79.8

120.1

Gan

Rec%

100.0

2.8

1.9

1.7

1.7

8.1

3.3

3.2

98.9

1.6

1.2

1.1

13.4

0.3

0.1

0.1

0.9

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.4

131

iii.

Plant condition & simulation results comparison by Mineral Splitter

132

Unit

Feed

BR
C1

BR
C2

BR
C3

BR
C4

Rougher
Conc

BS
C1

BS
C2

Tail

BC
C1

BC
C2

Bulk Conc

Bulk Midd

Lead Conc

Zinc Conc

Total solids

t/h

145.0

21.5

8.8

5.7

3.3

39.3

5.0

4.3

120.0

31.9

30.3

25.0

23.5

5.4

19.6

Solids Recovery

Rec%

100.0

14.9

6.0

3.9

2.2

27.1

3.4

2.9

82.8

22.0

20.9

17.2

16.2

3.7

13.5

Zn

wt%

8.0

39.7

36.2

30.8

17.6

35.8

9.6

4.7

0.3

44.7

45.5

45.1

14.8

6.3

55.7

Cu

wt%

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.9

0.0

Pb

wt%

3.3

16.8

13.1

10.9

7.5

14.4

4.6

2.5

0.3

17.8

18.0

18.0

6.2

73.8

2.8

Fe

wt%

0.7

3.7

3.4

2.9

1.7

3.4

0.9

0.5

0.0

4.2

4.3

4.2

1.4

1.3

5.0

wt%

4.8

24.0

21.6

18.3

10.7

21.5

5.9

2.9

0.2

26.9

27.3

27.1

9.0

15.9

30.1

Cd

wt%

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Ag

wt%

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Sp

wt%

13.0

64.4

58.8

50.0

28.6

58.1

15.5

7.6

0.4

72.5

73.8

73.2

23.9

10.2

90.3

Ccp

wt%

0.1

0.6

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.2

0.0

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.4

2.6

0.1

Gn

wt%

3.9

19.5

15.2

12.6

8.7

16.6

5.3

2.9

0.3

20.6

20.8

20.9

7.2

85.4

3.3

Gan

wt%

83.1

15.5

25.5

36.8

62.3

24.7

79.0

89.4

99.2

6.2

4.7

5.3

68.5

1.7

6.3

Zn

Rec%

100.0

73.9

27.4

15.1

5.0

121.4

4.1

1.7

2.8

123.0

119.2

97.2

30.0

2.9

94.3

Cu

Rec%

100.0

67.5

28.9

18.2

7.9

122.5

7.7

3.8

12.4

122.8

114.8

87.6

46.3

76.8

10.8

Pb

Rec%

100.0

75.2

23.8

12.8

5.0

116.8

4.7

2.2

6.7

117.6

113.0

93.3

30.4

81.8

11.5

Fe

Rec%

100.0

73.6

27.5

15.3

5.1

121.4

4.3

1.8

3.2

123.0

119.0

96.8

30.8

6.6

90.1

Rec%

100.0

74.0

27.0

14.9

5.0

120.9

4.2

1.8

3.3

122.4

118.5

96.7

30.2

12.1

84.6

Cd

Rec%

100.0

73.9

27.4

15.1

5.0

121.4

4.1

1.7

2.8

123.0

119.2

97.2

30.0

2.9

94.3

Ag

Rec%

100.0

75.2

23.8

12.8

5.0

116.8

4.7

2.2

6.7

117.6

113.0

93.3

30.4

81.8

11.5

Sp

Rec%

100.0

73.9

27.4

15.1

5.0

121.4

4.1

1.7

2.8

123.0

119.2

97.2

30.0

2.9

94.3

Ccp

Rec%

100.0

67.5

28.9

18.2

7.9

122.5

7.7

3.8

12.4

122.8

114.8

87.6

46.3

76.8

10.8

Gn

Rec%

100.0

75.2

23.8

12.8

5.0

116.8

4.7

2.2

6.7

117.6

113.0

93.3

30.4

81.8

11.5

Gan

Rec%

100.0

2.8

1.9

1.7

1.7

8.1

3.3

3.2

98.9

1.6

1.2

1.1

13.4

0.1

1.0

Parameter

133

iv.

Mass Balance 2 kinetic model simulation comparison

Method

Plant Conditions
According to
Mass Balance

Plant Simulation
According to
Laboratory Test
Kinetics Models

v.

Stream

Solid Flow (t/h)

Solid Flow (%)

Zn %

Pb %

Sph %

Gn %

Gangue %

Sph Rec %

Gn Rec%

Gangue Rec %

Feed

145.0

100.0

8.0

3.3

13.0

3.9

83.2

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Bulk Concentrate

24.6

17.0

44.3

18.8

71.9

21.8

6.3

94.3%

95.9%

1.3%

Zinc Concentrate

19.2

13.2

55.4

2.8

89.9

3.2

6.9

91.6%

11.1%

1.1%

Lead Concentrate

5.5

3.8

5.7

71.5

9.2

82.7

8.1

2.7%

81.3%

0.4%

Tailings

120.4

83.0

0.6

0.2

0.9

0.2

98.9

5.7%

5.2%

98.7%

Feed

145.0

100.0

8.0

3.3

13.0

3.9

83.2

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Bulk Concentrate

25.0

17.2

45.1

18.0

73.2

20.9

5.9

97.2%

93.3%

1.2%

Zinc Concentrate

18.3

12.6

55.2

3.6

89.5

4.1

6.3

87.0%

13.5%

1.0%

Lead Concentrate

6.7

4.6

17.7

57.3

28.7

66.4

4.9

10.3%

79.8%

0.3%

Tailings

120.0

82.8

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.3

99.2

2.8%

6.7%

98.8%

Mass Balance Kinetic model and mineral splitter simulation comparison

Method

Plant Conditions
According to
Mass Balance

Plant Simulation
According to
Kinetic Model and
Mineral Splitter

Stream

Solid Flow (t/h)

Solid Flow (%)

Zn %

Pb %

Sph %

Gn %

Gangue %

Sph Rec %

Gn Rec%

Gangue Rec %

Feed

145.0

100.0

8.0

3.3

13.0

3.9

83.2

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Bulk Concentrate

24.6

17.0

44.3

18.8

71.9

21.8

6.3

94.3%

95.9%

1.3%

Zinc Concentrate

19.2

13.2

55.4

2.8

89.9

3.2

6.9

91.6%

11.1%

1.1%

Lead Concentrate

5.5

3.8

5.7

71.5

9.2

82.7

8.1

2.7%

81.3%

0.4%

Tailings

120.4

83.0

0.6

0.2

0.9

0.2

98.9

5.7%

5.2%

98.7%

Feed

145.0

100.0

8.0

3.3

13.0

3.9

83.2

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Bulk Concentrate

25.0

17.2

45.1

18.0

73.2

20.9

5.9

97.4%

93.4%

1.2%

Zinc Concentrate

19.6

13.5

55.7

2.8

90.3

3.3

6.4

94.3%

11.5%

1.0%

Lead Concentrate

5.4

3.7

6.3

73.8

10.3

85.4

4.3

3.0%

81.8%

0.2%

Tailings

120.0

82.8

0.3

0.3

0.4

0.3

99.2

2.6%

6.7%

98.8%

134

Appendix 4.7 Simulation & Forecast

i.

Reference Sample

135

Parameter

Unit

Feed

BR
C1

BR
C2

BR
C3

Solids Recovery

Rec%

100.00

16.72

6.79

3.87

Zn

wt%

8.86

39.44

36.17

28.51

Cu

wt%

0.04

0.17

0.18

0.17

Pb

wt%

3.96

17.87

13.97

Fe

wt%

0.83

3.67

wt%

5.38

Cd

wt%

Ag

BR
C4

BS
C1

BS
C2

Tail

Rougher Conc

BC
C1

BC
T1

BC
C2

Bulk Conc

Bulk Midd

Lead Conc

Zinc Conc

2.74

3.88

3.17

80.80

30.11

24.78

10.91

23.36

19.20

17.96

4.31

14.89

20.83

11.54

5.81

0.33

35.61

43.82

19.51

45.06

44.75

15.37

5.98

55.97

0.14

0.10

0.06

0.01

0.17

0.21

0.14

0.21

0.19

0.11

0.76

0.03

11.05

8.77

5.53

3.13

0.34

15.29

18.70

8.47

19.06

19.16

6.89

74.85

3.04

3.38

2.69

1.98

1.11

0.57

0.04

3.32

4.09

1.86

4.20

4.16

1.47

1.20

5.01

24.00

21.65

17.09

12.62

7.11

3.64

0.24

21.55

26.50

11.86

27.21

27.05

9.39

15.72

30.33

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.02

wt%

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.03

0.00

Sp

wt%

14.37

63.98

58.67

46.24

33.79

18.71

9.42

0.53

57.76

71.08

31.65

73.10

72.59

24.93

9.70

90.79

Ccp

wt%

0.12

0.50

0.53

0.49

0.42

0.28

0.17

0.02

0.50

0.61

0.39

0.61

0.56

0.33

2.20

0.09

Gn

wt%

4.58

20.69

16.17

12.79

10.15

6.40

3.63

0.40

17.70

21.65

9.80

22.06

22.18

7.98

86.65

3.52

Gan

wt%

80.93

14.83

24.63

40.48

55.64

74.60

86.79

99.05

24.05

6.66

58.16

4.23

4.67

66.76

1.46

5.60

Zn

Rec%

100.00

74.42

27.70

12.46

6.44

5.05

2.08

3.00

121.02

122.59

24.03

118.84

97.00

31.16

2.91

94.09

Cu

Rec%

100.00

67.91

29.16

15.41

9.23

8.69

4.22

12.88

121.71

122.09

34.58

114.11

87.12

47.50

76.41

10.72

Pb

Rec%

100.00

75.51

23.96

10.81

6.07

5.43

2.51

7.00

116.35

117.15

23.35

112.55

93.00

31.29

81.56

11.44

Fe

Rec%

100.00

74.12

27.77

12.60

6.56

5.22

2.18

3.45

121.06

122.57

24.51

118.62

96.55

31.90

6.27

90.28

Rec%

100.00

74.49

27.28

12.30

6.42

5.13

2.15

3.54

120.49

121.96

24.03

118.07

96.46

31.30

12.59

83.87

Cd

Rec%

100.00

74.42

27.70

12.46

6.44

5.05

2.08

3.00

121.02

122.59

24.03

118.84

97.00

31.16

2.91

94.09

Ag

Rec%

100.00

75.51

23.96

10.81

6.07

5.43

2.51

7.00

116.35

117.15

23.35

112.55

93.00

31.29

81.56

11.44

Sp

Rec%

100.00

74.42

27.70

12.46

6.44

5.05

2.08

3.00

121.02

122.59

24.03

118.84

97.00

31.16

2.91

94.09

Ccp

Rec%

100.00

67.91

29.16

15.41

9.23

8.69

4.22

12.88

121.71

122.09

34.58

114.11

87.12

47.50

76.41

10.72

Gn

Rec%

100.00

75.51

23.96

10.81

6.07

5.43

2.51

7.00

116.35

117.15

23.35

112.55

93.00

31.29

81.56

11.44

Gan

Rec%

100.00

3.06

2.06

1.94

1.88

3.58

3.40

98.89

8.95

2.04

7.84

1.22

1.11

14.82

0.08

1.03

136

ii.

Borta Bakom

137

Parameter

Unit

Feed

BR
C1

BR
C2

BR
C3

Solids Recovery

Rec%

100.00

11.46

5.35

3.27

Zn

wt%

5.99

33.91

29.83

24.05

Cu

wt%

0.01

0.08

0.06

0.04

Pb

wt%

2.46

15.69

9.78

Fe

wt%

0.63

3.59

wt%

3.63

Cd

wt%

Ag

BR
C4

BS
C1

BS
C2

Tail

Rougher Conc

BC
C1

BC
T1

BC
C2

Bulk Conc

Bulk Midd

Lead Conc

2.39

3.37

2.64

87.44

22.47

18.46

11.33

6.54

1.04

29.86

18.01

9.91

15.91

12.56

15.92

2.66

9.89

37.59

16.51

40.55

40.40

13.76

5.71

49.75

0.02

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.06

0.08

0.02

0.09

0.09

0.02

0.38

0.01

6.09

3.94

2.05

1.02

0.25

11.64

14.68

3.78

16.35

17.84

2.95

73.72

2.79

3.14

2.53

1.93

1.18

0.68

0.11

3.15

3.97

1.73

4.28

4.27

1.44

0.93

5.17

20.85

17.70

13.98

10.61

6.45

3.69

0.60

18.01

22.68

9.53

24.55

24.71

7.91

15.06

27.31

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.02

wt%

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.03

0.00

Sp

wt%

9.84

55.75

Ccp

wt%

0.04

0.23

49.04

39.54

30.34

18.63

10.75

1.71

49.09

61.80

27.13

66.66

66.42

22.62

9.39

81.78

0.16

0.10

0.07

0.03

0.01

0.01

0.18

0.22

0.06

0.25

0.27

0.05

1.10

0.04

Gn

wt%

2.85

18.16

11.33

7.05

4.57

2.37

1.18

0.29

13.47

17.00

4.37

18.92

20.65

3.42

85.34

3.22

Gan

wt%

87.27

25.86

39.47

53.31

65.03

78.97

88.06

97.99

37.26

20.98

68.43

14.18

12.67

73.92

4.18

14.96

Zn

Rec%

100.00

64.93

26.64

13.15

7.36

6.38

2.88

15.24

112.08

113.14

27.32

107.77

84.76

36.58

2.54

82.22

Cu

Rec%

100.00

67.55

22.47

8.91

4.07

2.76

0.99

12.78

103.01

104.45

15.79

102.83

87.22

19.53

76.50

10.73

Pb

Rec%

100.00

73.03

21.24

8.10

3.82

2.80

1.09

9.01

106.19

107.43

15.21

105.63

90.99

19.10

79.80

11.19

Fe

Rec%

100.00

64.98

26.56

13.07

7.30

6.31

2.85

15.19

111.92

112.98

27.11

107.68

84.81

36.27

3.90

80.90

Rec%

100.00

65.80

26.05

12.60

6.97

5.99

2.68

14.57

111.42

112.50

25.99

107.52

85.43

34.66

11.05

74.39

Cd

Rec%

100.00

64.93

26.64

13.15

7.36

6.38

2.88

15.24

112.08

113.14

27.32

107.77

84.76

36.58

2.54

82.22

Ag

Rec%

100.00

73.03

21.24

8.10

3.82

2.80

1.09

9.01

106.19

107.43

15.21

105.63

90.99

19.10

79.80

11.19

Sp

Rec%

100.00

64.93

26.64

13.15

7.36

6.38

2.88

15.24

112.08

113.14

27.32

107.77

84.76

36.58

2.54

82.22

Ccp

Rec%

100.00

67.55

22.47

8.91

4.07

2.76

0.99

12.78

103.01

104.45

15.79

102.83

87.22

19.53

76.50

10.73

Gn

Rec%

100.00

73.03

21.24

8.10

3.82

2.80

1.09

9.01

106.19

107.43

15.21

105.63

90.99

19.10

79.80

11.19

Gan

Rec%

100.00

3.40

2.42

2.00

1.78

3.05

2.66

98.18

9.59

4.33

7.77

2.58

1.82

13.48

0.13

1.70

138

Zinc Conc

iii.

Savsjon

139

Parameter

Unit

Feed

BR
C1

BR
C2

BR
C3

BR
C4

Solids Recovery

Rec%

100.00

20.04

9.34

5.94

4.44

Zn

wt%

10.58

36.49

33.12

28.79

24.61

Cu

wt%

0.06

0.23

0.15

0.08

0.05

Pb

wt%

3.54

14.01

7.57

4.03

Fe

wt%

1.41

4.86

4.36

wt%

6.46

22.56

Cd

wt%

0.00

Ag

wt%

Sp

BS
C1

BS
C2

Tail

Rougher Conc

BC
C1

BC
T1

BC
C2

Bulk Conc

Bulk Midd

Lead Conc

Zinc Conc

6.20

4.67

78.78

39.77

32.48

18.55

27.89

21.22

29.42

4.21

17.00

18.26

12.88

2.05

33.22

40.26

22.87

42.83

42.27

20.31

6.39

51.17

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.17

0.21

0.05

0.24

0.27

0.04

1.20

0.04

2.34

1.12

0.53

0.15

9.70

12.00

2.35

13.85

16.13

1.80

71.21

2.48

3.75

3.18

2.35

1.65

0.27

4.39

5.32

2.96

5.68

5.64

2.63

1.87

6.57

19.61

16.60

13.99

10.27

7.20

1.16

20.02

24.30

13.03

26.04

26.13

11.53

15.93

28.65

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.02

0.00

wt%

17.77

61.29

55.63

48.36

41.33

30.67

21.63

3.44

55.80

67.62

38.42

71.93

71.00

34.12

10.72

85.93

Ccp

wt%

0.18

0.66

0.42

0.24

0.14

0.07

0.03

0.02

0.48

0.60

0.14

0.69

0.79

0.11

3.48

0.12

Gn

wt%

4.10

16.22

8.76

4.66

2.70

1.30

0.62

0.18

11.23

13.90

2.72

16.03

18.67

2.09

82.43

2.87

Gan

wt%

77.95

21.83

35.19

46.74

55.82

67.97

77.72

96.37

32.49

17.88

58.72

11.34

9.55

63.69

3.37

11.08

Zn

Rec%

100.00

69.12

29.25

16.17

10.33

10.70

5.68

15.23

124.88

123.62

40.11

112.91

84.77

56.49

2.54

82.22

Cu

Rec%

100.00

73.82

21.80

8.04

3.55

2.35

0.83

7.07

107.20

108.56

14.27

107.29

92.93

17.45

81.50

11.43

Pb

Rec%

100.00

79.27

19.97

6.76

2.93

1.96

0.70

3.40

108.92

110.10

12.32

109.08

96.60

14.99

84.72

11.88

Fe

Rec%

100.00

69.31

28.96

15.85

10.07

10.38

5.49

14.92

124.19

123.03

39.10

112.69

85.08

54.97

5.62

79.47

Rec%

100.00

70.05

28.37

15.28

9.63

9.87

5.21

14.13

123.33

122.30

37.46

112.52

85.87

52.53

10.40

75.47

Cd

Rec%

100.00

69.12

29.25

16.17

10.33

10.70

5.68

15.23

124.88

123.62

40.11

112.91

84.77

56.49

2.54

82.22

Ag

Rec%

100.00

79.27

19.97

6.76

2.93

1.96

0.70

3.40

108.92

110.10

12.32

109.08

96.60

14.99

84.72

11.88

Sp

Rec%

100.00

69.12

29.25

16.17

10.33

10.70

5.68

15.23

124.88

123.62

40.11

112.91

84.77

56.49

2.54

82.22

Ccp

Rec%

100.00

73.82

21.80

8.04

3.55

2.35

0.83

7.07

107.20

108.56

14.27

107.29

92.93

17.45

81.50

11.43

Gn

Rec%

100.00

79.27

19.97

6.76

2.93

1.96

0.70

3.40

108.92

110.10

12.32

109.08

96.60

14.99

84.72

11.88

Gan

Rec%

100.00

5.61

4.22

3.56

3.18

5.41

4.66

97.40

16.58

7.45

13.98

4.06

2.60

24.04

0.18

2.42

140

iv.

Mellanby

141

Parameter

Unit

Feed

BR
C1

BR
C2

BR
C3

BR
C4

BS
C1

BS
C2

Tail

Rougher
Conc

BC
C1

BC
T1

BC
C2

Bulk
Conc

Bulk
Midd

Lead
Conc

Zinc
Conc

Solids
Recovery

Rec%

100.00

8.17

4.44

3.03

2.34

3.45

2.80

91.34

17.97

13.52

9.31

11.92

8.66

15.56

1.64

7.02

Zn

wt%

6.56

37.31

35.22

31.90

28.08

21.08

14.67

3.18

34.68

44.70

27.75

44.21

42.14

23.92

6.68

50.41

Cu

wt%

0.03

0.15

0.10

0.07

0.05

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.11

0.15

0.04

0.16

0.18

0.03

0.83

0.03

Pb

wt%

1.49

12.99

7.45

4.55

3.01

1.64

0.85

0.18

8.90

11.96

2.93

13.21

15.34

2.27

71.11

2.33

Fe

wt%

0.86

4.85

4.54

4.09

3.59

2.69

1.87

0.42

4.48

5.78

3.55

5.73

5.49

3.06

1.57

6.40

wt%

3.88

22.75

20.68

18.36

15.99

11.90

8.23

1.80

20.62

26.66

15.80

26.60

25.81

13.57

15.70

28.17

Cd

wt%

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.02

Ag

wt%

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.02

0.00

Sp

wt%

11.00

62.60

59.10

53.53

47.12

35.38

24.62

5.34

58.19

75.01

46.56

74.18

70.71

40.14

11.21

84.58

Ccp

wt%

0.10

0.43

0.28

0.19

0.13

0.08

0.04

0.06

0.31

0.42

0.13

0.46

0.52

0.10

2.39

0.08

Gn

wt%

1.73

15.04

8.63

5.27

3.49

1.90

0.98

0.21

10.31

13.85

3.39

15.29

17.75

2.63

82.31

2.69

Gan

wt%

87.17

21.94

31.99

41.02

49.26

62.65

74.36

94.39

31.19

10.72

49.92

10.07

11.02

57.14

4.08

12.64

Zn

Rec%

100.00

46.47

23.85

14.73

10.01

11.08

6.26

44.37

95.07

92.16

39.43

80.41

55.63

56.78

1.67

53.97

Cu

Rec%

100.00

36.67

13.00

5.99

3.27

2.79

1.24

53.41

58.94

59.51

12.35

57.25

46.59

16.38

40.86

5.73

88.82

23.61

77.89

10.92

Pb

Rec%

100.00

70.99

22.14

9.21

4.71

3.78

1.59

11.18

107.05

108.20

18.24

105.4
0

Fe

Rec%

100.00

46.14

23.48

14.43

9.78

10.80

6.09

44.67

93.84

91.05

38.51

79.62

55.33

55.41

3.00

52.33

Rec%

100.00

47.87

23.66

14.32

9.63

10.57

5.94

42.43

95.48

92.85

37.91

81.72

57.57

54.42

6.62

50.94

Cd

Rec%

100.00

46.47

23.85

14.73

10.01

11.08

6.26

44.37

95.07

92.16

39.43

80.41

55.63

56.78

1.67

53.97

88.82

23.61

77.89

10.92

Ag

Rec%

100.00

70.99

22.14

9.21

4.71

3.78

1.59

11.18

107.05

108.20

18.24

105.4
0

Sp

Rec%

100.00

46.47

23.85

14.73

10.01

11.08

6.26

44.37

95.07

92.16

39.43

80.41

55.63

56.78

1.67

53.97

Ccp

Rec%

100.00

36.67

13.00

5.99

3.27

2.79

1.24

53.41

58.94

59.51

12.35

57.25

46.59

16.38

40.86

5.73

Gn

Rec%

100.00

70.99

22.14

9.21

4.71

3.78

1.59

11.18

107.05

108.20

18.24

105.4
0

88.82

23.61

77.89

10.92

Gan

Rec%

100.00

2.06

1.63

1.42

1.32

2.48

2.39

98.91

6.43

1.66

5.33

1.38

1.09

10.20

0.08

1.02

142