A comparison of pyrrhotite rejection;passivation in two nickel ores
| dc.contributor.author | Chimbganda, T | |
| dc.contributor.author | Becker, M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Broadhurst, J L | |
| dc.contributor.author | Harrison, S T L | |
| dc.contributor.author | Franzidis, J-P | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-08-22T12:50:33Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2016-08-22T12:50:33Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
| dc.date.updated | 2016-08-22T11:14:29Z | |
| dc.description.abstract | The non-stoichiometric sulfide mineral pyrrhotite (Fe1-xS) occurs almost ubiquitously inter-grown with the principal nickel mineral, pentlandite ((Fe,Ni)9S8). During Ni processing, pyrrhotite is generally rejected to the tailings stream by flotation to produce a low tonnage, high grade (Ni) smelter feed and reduce SO2 emissions. In this study, the effect of different pyrrhotite flotation rejection strategies (artificial oxidation and TETA: SMBS addition) are evaluated on a magnetic (Ore A) and non-magnetic (Ore B) pyrrhotite ore to determine if either may effectively depress and potentially passivate the pyrrhotite surface during flotation to produce benign tailings without compromising pentlandite recovery. For both ores, the best pyrrhotite rejection (pentlandite/pyrrhotite recovery) was obtained using TETA: SMBS. Differences in the flotation performance of the two ores are considered more a function of BMS content, liberation and ore handling rather than a difference in sulfide passivation from the inherent pyrrhotite mineralogy (magnetic vs non-magnetic pyrrhotite). Pyrrhotite passivation could possibly provide a means of rendering the tailings non-reactive and thus mitigate acid rock drainage (ARD) formation. | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2013.03.031 | |
| dc.identifier.apacitation | Chimbganda, T., Becker, M., Broadhurst, J. L., Harrison, S. T. L., & Franzidis, J. (2013). A comparison of pyrrhotite rejection;passivation in two nickel ores. <i>Minerals Engineering</i>, http://hdl.handle.net/11427/21437 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.chicagocitation | Chimbganda, T, M Becker, J L Broadhurst, S T L Harrison, and J-P Franzidis "A comparison of pyrrhotite rejection;passivation in two nickel ores." <i>Minerals Engineering</i> (2013) http://hdl.handle.net/11427/21437 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.citation | Chimbganda, T., Becker, M., Broadhurst, J. L., Harrison, S. T. L., & Franzidis, J. P. (2013). A comparison of pyrrhotite rejection and passivation in two nickel ores. Minerals Engineering, 46, 38-44. | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0892-6875 | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.ris | TY - Journal Article AU - Chimbganda, T AU - Becker, M AU - Broadhurst, J L AU - Harrison, S T L AU - Franzidis, J-P AB - The non-stoichiometric sulfide mineral pyrrhotite (Fe1-xS) occurs almost ubiquitously inter-grown with the principal nickel mineral, pentlandite ((Fe,Ni)9S8). During Ni processing, pyrrhotite is generally rejected to the tailings stream by flotation to produce a low tonnage, high grade (Ni) smelter feed and reduce SO2 emissions. In this study, the effect of different pyrrhotite flotation rejection strategies (artificial oxidation and TETA: SMBS addition) are evaluated on a magnetic (Ore A) and non-magnetic (Ore B) pyrrhotite ore to determine if either may effectively depress and potentially passivate the pyrrhotite surface during flotation to produce benign tailings without compromising pentlandite recovery. For both ores, the best pyrrhotite rejection (pentlandite/pyrrhotite recovery) was obtained using TETA: SMBS. Differences in the flotation performance of the two ores are considered more a function of BMS content, liberation and ore handling rather than a difference in sulfide passivation from the inherent pyrrhotite mineralogy (magnetic vs non-magnetic pyrrhotite). Pyrrhotite passivation could possibly provide a means of rendering the tailings non-reactive and thus mitigate acid rock drainage (ARD) formation. DA - 2013 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town J1 - Minerals Engineering LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PB - University of Cape Town PY - 2013 SM - 0892-6875 T1 - A comparison of pyrrhotite rejection;passivation in two nickel ores TI - A comparison of pyrrhotite rejection;passivation in two nickel ores UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/21437 ER - | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11427/21437 | |
| dc.identifier.vancouvercitation | Chimbganda T, Becker M, Broadhurst JL, Harrison STL, Franzidis J. A comparison of pyrrhotite rejection;passivation in two nickel ores. Minerals Engineering. 2013; http://hdl.handle.net/11427/21437. | en_ZA |
| dc.language | eng | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher | Elsevier | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher.institution | University of Cape Town | |
| dc.rights | Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) | * |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | en_ZA |
| dc.source | Minerals Engineering | en_ZA |
| dc.source.uri | http://www.journals.elsevier.com/minerals-engineering/ | |
| dc.subject.other | Acid rock drainage | |
| dc.subject.other | Pyrrhotite rejection | |
| dc.subject.other | Pyrrhotite passivation | |
| dc.subject.other | Polyethylene polyamines | |
| dc.title | A comparison of pyrrhotite rejection;passivation in two nickel ores | en_ZA |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en_ZA |
| uct.type.filetype | Text | |
| uct.type.filetype | Image | |
| uct.type.publication | Research | en_ZA |
| uct.type.resource | Article | en_ZA |