147  Mineral Processing Technology (MPT 2007)

Processing of Plant Rejects—For Sillimanite Recovery

D. Viswanatha
Indian Rare Earth Ltd., Manavalakurichi Plant

ABSTRACT: The raw sand processed at Manavalakurichi Unit of Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL)
contains heavy minerals like ilmenite, rutile, zircon, monazite, garnet and sillimanite apart from quartz and
shell. Except Sillimanite all other heavy minerals are produced at this unit. Thus the sillimanite becomes part
of rejects. Based on their physical properties viz., specific gravity, magnetic susceptibility, conductivity and
size alone it is difficult to separate sillimanite. Flotation process is one option. Flotation tests are conducted in
a lab model Denver flotation cell. In flotation it is found that better recoveries and grades of sillimanite are
obtained under optimum conditions. However, it is noticed that shell (recovery 95%) equally floats with
sillimanite (recovery 97%). The shell content enriches in flotation concentrate to more than 4%. Shell is a
contaminant, and its presence in the product is not acceptable to the down stream industry. Though the shell
can be effectively dissolved in acid, the associated environmental problems make the acid treatment method
is prohibitive. In view of this, few tests are conducted with sillimanite concentrate on Electro Static Plate
Separator to reduce the shell content in it and encouraging results are noticed. After carrying out few plant
scale trials the same process is adopted in plant. Thus the application of Electro Static Plate Separator to
reduce shell content in sillimanite converted the plant rejects into a valuable product—sillimanite and after
implementation of it, 446.25 MT of sillimanite is produced in 2005-06.

Key Words: Dry Mill Rejects, Flotation, Reagents, Shell, Sillimanite, and Electro Static Plate Separator.

1. INTRODUCTION Size,
ASTM Mesh No. Wt %
Microns
The raw sand processed at Manavalakurichi Unit
of IREL contains heavy minerals like Ilmenite, 40 425 0.00
Rutile, Zircon, Monazite, Garnet and Sillimanite.
50 300 1.40
Except Sillimanite all other minerals are produced
at this unit. Hence sillimanite becomes part of 60 250 7.33
rejects. Presence of Shell makes sillimanite not 70 212 25.97
acceptable to the down stream industry. Thus the
shell removal is essential step in sillimanite 100 150 49.52
production process. The obvious choice is acid 140 106 14.61
treatment, but the associated environmental issues
make it prohibitive. A novel approach is adopted 200 75 1.17
to reduce shell content by processing through an –200 –75 0.00
Electro Static Plate Separator (ESPS). This
process brought down the shell content in
sillimanite to within the limit. Thus the plant rejects The same data is presented in Figure 1. It is
are virtually converted into a valuable product. inferred that the particles are distributed in a
narrow size range i.e. –250 micron to +160 micron.
Mineralogical analysis of sample is given in
2. FEED Table 2. Sillimanite and quartz are predominant
in it.
Feed to the test work is wet circuit rejects in dry
mill. Sieve analysis of feed is presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Sieve analysis of Feed
Processing of Plant Rejects—For Sillimanite Recovery 148
(recovery 95%) equally floats with sillimanite
SIZE Vs CUM WT % RETAINED (recovery 97%). The shell content enriches in
flotation concentrate to more than 4%. The best
120 test results are presented in Table 3.
Cum Wt % Retained

100
80 Table 3: Mineralogical balance of flotation test
60 Fraction Cleaner Conc Cleaner Tails Rougher Tails Feed
40
20
Feed Wt % 50.3 1.3 48.4
Mineral A D A D A D A
0
Ilmenite 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.9 99.4 0.4
400 300 200 100 0
Leucoxene 0.0 0.0 4.6 3.3 3.6 96.7 1.8
Size (M icrons)
Rutile 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.3 10.5 99.7 5.1
Zircon 1.8 36.4 10.1 5.3 3.0 58.3 2.4
Fig. 1: Size distribution of feed Garnet 0.4 66.4 0.4 1.7 0.2 31.9 0.3
Sillimanite 92.6 97.1 57.4 1.6 1.3 1.3 48.0
Table 2: Mineralogical analysis of Test feed
Kyanite 0.9 57.4 7.2 11.0 0.5 30.7 0.8
Mineral Assay (%)
Quartz 0.3 0.4 18.5 0.6 79.6 99.0 39.0
Ilmenite 0.25
Shell 4.0 95.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 4.6 2.1
Leucoxene 0.76
N.B.: “A” & “D” refers to assay % and distribution % respectively.
Rutile 0.50
Zircon 3.70
It is noticed that the recovery of sillimanite and
Monazite 0.03
shell is above 95 %. Shell is a contaminant. Shell
Sillimanite 57.08 dissolves well in hydrochloric acid. However the
Kyanite 1.12 associated environmental problems discourages
Quartz 33.65 the processing through chemical route. In this
Shell 2.02 context a novel approach is adopted to reduce the
Other Heavies 0.89 shell content in Sillimanite flotation concentrate
by processing through ESPS. The best test results
are given in Table 4.
3. TEST WORK
Table 4: Mineralogical balance of ESPS test
The tests are conducted in a laboratory model
Denver flotation cell. A cell of 6000 cc volume is Fraction Wt % Shell
used for conducting the tests. Sodium carbonate is Cond 22.83 A 11.57
used as pH modifier, Sodium silicate as D 91.45
depressant and Oleic acid as collector. Series of Non-Cond 77.17 A 0.32
tests are conducted by varying the reagent D 8.55
dosages. The rougher concentrate is further Feed 100.00 A 2.89
processed in cleaner flotation stage. A lab model N.B: “A” & “D” refers to assay % and distribution % respectively.

ESPS is used for conducting test work.
4. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
In flotation it is found that better recoveries and
grades of sillimanite are obtained under optimum
conditions. However, it is noticed that shell
The results indicate that it is possible to
reduce shell content in flotation concentrate by
processing through ESPS.
The above-mentioned method is imple-
mented in the plant operations.
5. PLANT PRACTICE
149  Mineral Processing Technology (MPT 2007)
The plant rejects are pumped to the conditioner-1
Zircon wet circuit rejects
through a hydrocyclone. The hydrocyclone
underflow is the feed to the flotation circuit and
overflow is mostly water. In conditioner-1,
sodium carbonate and sodium silicate are added O/F
and an alkaline pH is maintained. The slurry Hydro cyclone
flows from conditioner-1 to conditioner-2. Oleic
acid is added to the slurry in conditioner-2. The
U/F Sodium
rougher bank consists of three cells with matching Soda
capacity of conditioners. The rougher concentrate silicate
ash
is cleaned in Cleaner flotation cells. The rougher
tails are rejects. The cleaner concentrate is Conditioner -1
dewatered through a pan filter and the cake is
dried through a drier. The dried concentrate is
processed through Electro Static Plate Separator
and its non-conducting fraction is sillimanite Oleic acid
product. The flow chart is given in Figure 2. After
implementation of this method, 446.25 MT of Conditioner – 2
sillimanite is produced in 2005-06.
Non Cond
6. CONCLUSIONS
Rougher Flotation
(a) Shell floats along with Sillimanite. Above 95 Tails
% of shell and sillimanite are floated. R conc Cl Tails
(b) Shell content is reduced from 2.89 to 0.32 %
by processing through an Electro Static Plate Cleaner Flotation
Separator.
(c) It is possible to produce an acceptable grade Cl conc
of sillimanite from plant rejects by physical
separation methods.
Filter

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author expresses sincere thanks to the IRE Drier

management in particular to Sri. Sivasub-
ramanian, CMD, IRE for the consent given to
publish this paper and for the support, guidance
and encouragement given from the conceptual Cond
Electro Static Plate
stage to commercialization of the project. Separator

Non Cond

Sillimanite

Fig. 2: Flow-chart of sillimanite circuit