OPTIMIZATION OF SHAKING TABLE AND DRY MAGNETIC SEPARATION ON

RECOVERY OF EGYPTIAN PLACER CASSITERITE USING EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

TECHNIQUE
M. A. Youssef 1, M.K. Abd El-Rahman 1, N.H. Helal 2, M. M. El- Rabiei 2, S. R. Elsaidy 1
1Central

Metallurgical Research of Development Institute, P.O. Box :87, Helwan, Cairo, Egypt

2 Faculty

of Science, Fayoum University

ABSTRACT: Experimental design technique is applied to optimize shaking table and dry high intensity magnetic
separation processes on recovery of cassiterite from Igla Placer ore of Eastern Desert of Egypt. It could
investigate the effects of individual operating parameters and their interactions for both shaking table and dry
high intensity magnetic separation processes. Applying the optimum conditions for both separation techniques
showed that in case of shaking table separation concentrate containing 13.2% SnO2 and recovery of 86.2% by
weight SnO2 was obtained from a feed containing about 0.048 % SnO2. Cleaning of this concentrate by using dry
high intensity magnetic separation a final concentrate with 90.67% SnO2 and operational recovery of 96.7% SnO2
by weight was obtained.

Keywords: Cassiterite, shaking table, dry high intensity magnetic separation, Box-Behnken design, statistical experimental design
1. INTRODUCTION
Cassiterite (SnO2) is known as tinstone, stannic
oxide, tin (IV) oxide. It has many different industrial
applications such as ceramics, coating cans, pigments
[1], sensors of combustible gases [2], high voltage
varistors [3-4], and as electrode. It has a high specific
gravity
(6.8 - 7.1) and a Mohs scale hardness
of 6 to 7. There are two types of cassiterite, alluvial
placer and lode cassiterite. Alluvial placer cassiterite is
the major source of tin concentrate [5]. Tin placers
contain recoverable amounts of other heavy minerals
such as columbite-tantalite, wolframite, ilmenite, and
monazite [6-10]. About 70% of total world tin
production is produced from placer deposits [11].
About 35 countries mine tin throughout the world.
China, Indonesia, Peru, Bolivia and Brazil accounted
for about 95% of the world tin production [12].
Gravity technique is more recommended for
recovery of cassiterite due to the large difference in
specific gravity between cassiterite (6.8-7.1) and the
gangue silicate minerals (2.6) [13-16]. Cassiterite
could be upgraded by washing, tabling, and magnetic
or electrostatic separation. The final product is
virtually pure cassiterite. On the other hand lode
cassiterite deposit is reduced to the necessary size by
conventional crushing and grinding. The prepared
feed is concentrated by gravity methods that involve
screening, classification, jigging, and tabling. The
concentrate is usually a lower grade than placer
concentrate owing to associated sulfide minerals [5].
The unit operation to prepare primary cassiterite
concentrate in Malaysia and Thailand is the sluice
box used on alluvial deposits known as palongs. The
concentrate contains about 15 to 30 % tin and the
recovery efficiency can be up to 80 % [13]. At Iscor's
Uis Mine in South West Africa, a very low-grade tin

ore of 0.12 % tin is concentrated by three-stage

jigging, spiral concentration, and tabling to give a
high-grade concentrate of 63% tin with a recovery of
80% of the tin [17]. Induced-roll magnetic separator
has been successfully used in cassiterite recovery and
series of experiments have been performed on
cassiterite/wolframite separations [18]. A comparison
of the performance of the Bartles Crossbelt
performance with a standard slimes table, treating a
feed of 0.7% Sn grade and 97% -40 um, showed a
similar overall recovery of just 55% but the Crossbelt
produced a grade of 32% Sn compared with just 13%
Sn for the slime table [19].
In Egypt most cassiterite placers present in the
Eastern Desert. The most common localities are
Igla, Mueilha, Abu Dabab, and Nuweibi [20-22].
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
2.1 Material
A representative sample of Igla placer ore from Igla
locality about two tons was used in this study.
Complete chemical analysis, using type X-ray
fluorescence and for phase analysis using X- ray
diffractometer model PW 1010 was conducted.
2.2. Experimental Methods
2.2.1. Processing of Igla Placer Cassiterite
A representative sample was crushed using the jaw
crusher to prepare a feed about 3.36 mm for the
grinding process. The grinding process is carried out
for in closed circuit using Denver pilot rod mill
and sieve size 125 micron. The ground product from
125 to 80 micron was used as a feed for shaking table
separation.

Volume 11 - Issue 22

2.2.2. Separation Techniques for Igla Placer Cassiterite

The separation techniques involve a pilot

Wilfley shaking table gravity separator and
Ereiz dry high intensity rare earth magnetic
roll separator.
2.2.3. Shaking Table Separation Experiments
The feed is introduced onto an inclined plane and
reciprocated deck and moves in the direction of
motion while simultaneously being washed by a
water film, which moves it also at right angles to the
motion of the deck. The feed enters at the top of the
table, and collects within the valleys formed by the
narrow cleats, or riffles, which taper in height from
right to left. Under the effect of the reciprocating
action, the particles stratify with the heavier particles
on the bottom, and they move from right to left.
Owing to decreasing taper of the riffles, the exposed
upper surface of the stratified material is acted upon
by crosscurrents of water and by the inclination of
the deck, as indicated by the arrow, and is moved
downhill. A Wilfley shaking table was used in this
study, figure 1. Shaking table technique is applied on
feed -0.125 + 0.080 mm size fraction, and four
parameters are studied. The parameters are namely;
inclination angle, stroke length, feed rate and water
flow rate.

Figure 1. Wilfley shaking table unit

1: Sample feeding box, 2: Washing water feeding box, 3: Washing water,
4: Heavy products reservoirs, 5: Light products reservoirs

2.2.4. Dry High Intensity Magnetic Separation Experiments

Dry high intensity magnetic separation was carried
out on the concentrate obtained from shaking table
process using Eriez three stage rare earth magnetic
roll separator with permanent field intensity about1.5
tesla, figure 2. Three parameters are studied which
are splitter inclination, belt speed, and feed rate.

Figure 1. Eriez three stage rare earth magnetic roll

separator
Table 1. List of symbols
Symbol
Definition
Unit
Symbols used for Shaking Table Separation
Inclination angle
degree

Stroke length
cm

Feed rate
gm/min

Water flow rate

l/ min
Grade
% by weight

Recovery
% by weight

Symbols used for

DryHigh Intensity Magnetic
Separation
degree
Splitter inclination

Belt speed
rpm

Feed rate
gm/min

Grade
% by weight

Recovery
% by weight

Sum
of
squares

DF

Mean square

F Value

Prope > F

2.2.5. Applying Box-Behnken Design (BBD) for Both

Shaking Table and Dry Magnetic Separation
The Box-Behnken Design (BBD) was conducted for
both shaking table and dry high intensity magnetic
separation to determine the most important variables
and the interactions between different variables and
to identify the optimum conditions. According to
this design, the optimal conditions were estimated
using a second order polynomial function by which a
correlation between studied factors and response
(mean diameter) was generated. The general form of
this equation is:

Where:
is the predicted response, s are studied
and
are the regression
variables;
parameters. Software package, Design-Expert 6.0.5,
Stat-Ease, Inc., Minneapolis, USA, was used for
regression analysis of experimental data and to plot

M. A. Youssef, M.K. Abd El-Rahman, N.H. Helal, M. M. El- Rabiei, S. R. Elsaidy / The Journal of ORE DRESSING 2009

response surface [23]. Analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was used to estimate the statistical
parameters. The extent of fitting the experimental
results to the polynomial model equation was
expressed by the determination coefficient, R2. F-test
was used to estimate the significance of all terms in
the polynomial equation within 95% confidence
interval. "Adeq Precision" measures the signal to
noise ratio, a ratio greater than 4 is desirable and
indicates an adequate signal.
Table 2 represents the operating parameters for both
shaking table and dry high intensity magnetic

separation processes. Table 3 illustrates the factorial

design, recovery and grade of cassiterite for both
shaking table and magnetic separation processes.
Table 2. Test levels of parameters for both shaking
table and dry high intensity magnetic separation
Dry High Intensity Magnetic
Shaking Table Separation
Separation
Symbol (-)
(0) (+) Symbol (-)
(0)
(+)
3
4
5
70
75
80

2
2.5
3
50
75
100

100 250 400

500 750 1000

15
20
25

Table 3. Factorial design for shaking table and dry magnetic separation
Shaking Table Separation
Dry Magnetic Separation
Run

1
4
3
400
20
7.37
81.4
75
75
750
90.6
2
5
2.5
400
20
6.87
84
80
75
500
62.5
3
4
2
100
20
10.6
76.8
80
100
750
58.7
4
4
2.5
100
25
8.94
82
75
100
1000
77.1
5
4
3
100
20
5.7
80
75
75
750
90.6
6
4
3
250
25
7.95
83
75
50
500
81.3
7
5
2.5
100
20
6.2
81.9
70
50
750
74.6
8
4
3
250
15
7.46
79.8
70
75
1000
73.2
9
3
3
250
20
5.79
79.2
75
75
750
90.6
10
4
2.5
400
25
12.47
83.4
75
75
750
90.6
11
3
2.5
400
20
9
82.6
80
50
750
61.3
12
4
2.5
100
15
8.5
81
75
50
1000
79
13
5
2
250
20
4
74.5
80
75
1000
64.2
14
3
2.5
100
20
8.2
81.4
75
75
750
90.6
15
3
2.5
250
15
7.95
80.8
70
100
750
78.6
16
4
2.5
250
20
13.2
84.9
70
75
500
72.4
17
4
2.5
250
20
13.2
84.9
75
100
500
78.2
18
4
2.5
250
20
13.19
84.9
19
5
2.5
250
15
4.5
76.4
20
3
2
250
20
8.8
80.4
21
5
3
250
20
3.4
77.5
22
4
2.5
400
15
9.4
79.4
23
4
2.5
250
20
13.21
84.9
24
4
2
400
20
11.5
77.9
25
4
2
250
25
11.9
80
26
3
2.5
250
25
10
82
27
4
2.5
250
20
13.2
84.9
28
4
2
250
15
9.4
78.4
29
5
2.5
250
25
8.7
88.6

96.7
96.4
95.6
91.2
96.7
94.6
87.6
88.1
96.7
96.7
95.7
92.3
96.1
96.7
85.8
89.3
91.7

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1.Chemical and Mineralogical analyses of Igla
Placer Cassiterite
The results of complete chemical analysis of the
representative sample of Igla placer cassiterite ore
using X-ray fluorescence are given in table 4. It has
been shown that it contains about 0.048% SnO2.
Figure 3 represents the X-ray diffraction of the Igla
placer tin ore. It is noticed that it involves quartz,
feldspar, actinolite, and mica respectively.
Figure 3. X-ray diffraction of Igla original placer tin
ore

Volume 11 - Issue 22

Table 4. Complete chemical analysis of Igla original

placer tin ore
Constituent
Assay %
SnO2

0.048

SiO2

58.6

Al2 O3

12.01

MgO
CaO
Na2O

8.26
4.90
4.05

K2O

1.79

TiO2

0.53

Fe2O3

6.16

ZrSO4
Cl
P 2O5

0.01
0.20
0.11

SO3

0.046

L .O. I

3.00

18

0.10
Cum. Wt% passing
SnO2 % ( 0.0005)

8
6
4

80

0.08

SnO2 Distribution %

60

0.06

40

0.04

20

0.02

SnO2 %

10

Cumulative Weight % Passing

SnO2 Distribution %

12

Figure 4 shows the grain size analysis of the

cassiterite ore. It is shown that the ore passed 100 %
from 22 mm sieve size. The d80 and d50 of the ore are
14 mm and 6.8 mm respectively. It is seen that the
SnO2 % increases with decreasing the size. The
distribution percentage of the SnO2 reaches its
maximum at size less than 11.3 mm. It is noticed that
the size fraction larger than 11.3 mm represents
about 30 % by weight from the cassiterite ore and
contains only about 0.017 % SnO2. Therefore the ore
is screened on the sieve 11.3 mm for preparing a feed
for the recovery process. The oversize is discarded
and the undersize fraction is used for the recovery
process. Table 5 represents the size analysis and
distribution percentage of SnO2 of the undersize of
the sieve 11.3 mm. The size fraction from 11.3 mm
to 0.125 mm represents about 95 % by weight with
0.061 SnO2 % and 95 % distribution of cassiteriate.
It was crushed and grinding using rod mill in closed
circuit with screen 0.125 mm to prepare a feed for
shaking table.

100

16
14

3.2. Size Analysis of Original Igla Placer

Cassiterite Ore

2
0

0.00
10

100

1000

10000

Size, micron

Figure 4. The relation between the size (micron) of the original sample and cumulative weight %, SnO2 %, and
distribution percentage of the SnO2
Table 5. Size analysis and distribution of the
undersize fraction of sieve 11.3 mm
Weight SnO2 % Distribution
Size, mm
%
(0.0005)
%
-11.3 + 0.9
81.52
0.061
80.80
-0.9 + 0.4
7.39
0.060
7.17
-0.4 + 0.125
6.60
0.064
6.83
-11.3 to 0.125 95.51
0.0611
94.8
-0.125 + 0.08
1.88
0.060
1.82
-0.08
2.61
0.080
3.37
Total
100.00
0.062
100.00

3.3. Preparation of Feed for Shaking Table

The results of grinding and screening of size fraction
less than 11.3 mm are presented in table 6. It has
been noticed that the size fraction -0.125 +0.08 mm
represent about 45 % by weight with 0.058 % SnO2
and 42 distribution percentage of cassiterite . The

fine fraction less than 80 micron was taken for falcon

separation technique.

Table 6. Grinding and screening

Size fraction,
Weight
SnO2 %
(0.0005)
(mm)
%
-0.125 + 0.080
45
0.0580
- 0.080
55
0.0653
Total
100
0.062

Distribution
%
42.08
57.92
100

3.4. Relation between Recovery of Cassiterite and

Different Experimental Parameters
The Design-Expert 6.0 software program was used
to analyze each response to the regression model of
the parameters listed in table 3. Table 3 represents
groups of experimental data and it could establish the
multinomial model of the relation between recovery
of cassiterite and the operating parameters. It can be

M. A. Youssef, M.K. Abd El-Rahman, N.H. Helal, M. M. El- Rabiei, S. R. Elsaidy / The Journal of ORE DRESSING 2009

expressed as equations 2 and 3 for both shaking table

separation and dry high intensity magnetic
separation. The analysis of variance of the
multinomial model is given in tables 7 and 8. The
model F-value () for both shaking table separation
and dry magnetic separation represents 5.26 and
100.79 respectively and it indicates that the model is
significant. There is only 0.19 % and 0.01 % chance
for shaking table and dry magnetic separation that a
"Model F-Value" this large could occur due to noise.
Values of "Prob > F" less than 0.0500 indicate model
terms are significant. The terms in case shaking table

separation (, 2, 2, ) are more significant terms

and the terms in case dry magnetic separation
( ,,,2, 2, 2) are more significant terms. The
values greater than 0.1000 indicate model terms are
not significant. Table 8 represents the ANOVA
statistical analysis for both shaking table and dry high
intensity magnetic separation. The values in that table
indicate the will fitting of the experimental results to
the polynomial model equations for both shaking
table and dry magnetic separation and hence accuracy
of these models.

Recovery = _7.43 _ 2.48 * + 77.38 * + 7.76 * _ 0.68 * _1.8 * 2 _ 17.42 * 2 _ 6.63* 2 _ 0.045* 2 + 2.1* +
(2)
1.5* + 0.55* + 1.0* + 0.16* + 1.0*
Recovery = -585.05 +16.94* + 0.33* + 0.014* - 0.11* 2 - 4.44* 2 - 2.36* 2 + 3.40 * + 1.80* + 7.20*

(3)
Table 7. ANOVA for response surface 2FI model analysis of variance
Shaking Table Separation
Source

Model
231.41
14
16.53
1.02
1
1.02

13.87
1
13.87

2.61
1
2.61

44.85
1
44.85
2
21.11
1
21.11

2
122.98
1
122.98

2
14.43
1
14.43

2
8.09
1
8.09
4.41
1
4.41

0.20
1
0.20

30.25
1
30.25

0.022
1
0.022

0.64
1
0.64

2.25
1
2.25

Residual
44.01
14
3.14
Lack of Fit
44.01
10
4.40
0.00
4
0.00
Pure Error
Cor Total
275.42
28
Dry High Intensity Magnetic Separation
Model
225.81
9
25.09
136.13
1
136.13

4.35
1
4.35

2.31
1
2.31

2
31.84
1
31.84

2
32.42
1
32.42

2
9.16
1
9.16

0.72
1
0.72

0.20
1
0.20

0.81
1
0.81

Residual
1.74
7
0.25
Lack of Fit
1.74
3
0.58
Pure Error
0.00
4
0.00
Cor Total
227.55
16

5.26
0.32
4.41
0.83
14.27
6.72
39.12
4.59
2.57
1.40
0.064
9.62
7.158E-003
0.20
0.72

0.0019
0.5778
0.0543
0.3773
0.0020
0.0213
< 0.0001
0.0502
0.1310
0.2559
0.8033
0.0078
0.9338
0.6587
0.4117

100.79
546.84
17.48
9.28
127.92
130.25
36.80
2.90
0.81
3.25

< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0041
0.0187
< 0.0001
< 0.0001
0.0005
0.1322
0.3971
0.1142

Volume 11 - Issue 22

Table 8. ANOVA for response surface quadratic model for the shaking table separation and dry high intensity
magnetic separation
Shaking Table Separation
Dry Magnetic Separation
The statistical parameters
(Grade %)
(Recovery %
(Grade %)
(Recovery %
The standard deviation
0.85
1.77
2.24
0.50
R-squared
0.9575
0.8402
0.9820
0.9923
Adequate precision
15.631
7.879
18.017
28.811

Figure 5 (a & b) represents the response surfaces for

the shaking table cassiterite concentrate product
recovery at different values of studied parameters. In
figure 4a it is noticed that with increasing both
inclination angle and stroke length the recovery value
increases and reaches to the maximum value which is
84.97 % at inclination angle 3.95 degree, and stroke
length 2.56 cm. On the other hand increasing
inclination angle and stroke length more than 3.95
degree and 2.56 cm respectively lead to a slight
decrease in the recovery value. In figure 4b it is
noticed that with increasing both water flow rate and
feed rate the recovery value increases and reaches its
maximum value about 86 % at feed rate 311.15
gm/min, and water flow rate 24.76 l/min. On the
other hand increasing both feed rate and water flow
rate more than 311.15 gm/min and 24.76 l/min
respectively leads to a slight decrease in the recovery
value.
Figure 6 (a & b) illustrates the response surfaces for
the cleaning of shaking table concentrate using dry
high intensity magnetic separation. It represents the
recovery of cassiterite in non magnetic fraction at
different values of the studied factors. In figure 5a it
is noticed that with increasing both splitter
inclination and belt speed the recovery value
increases and reaches its maximum value about 97%
at splitter inclination 78.48 degree and belt speed
71.29 rpm. On the other hand increasing both
splitter inclination and belt speed more than 78.48
degree and 71.29 rpm respectively leads to a very
slight decrease in the recovery value. In figure 5b it is
noticed that with increasing both splitter inclination
and belt speed the recovery value increases and
reaches to the maximum value which is 98 % at
splitter inclination 78.62 degree and belt speed 73.89
rpm. On the other hand increasing splitter inclination
and belt speed more than 78.62 degree and 73.89
rpm respectively lead to a very slight decrease in the
recovery value.
3.6. Optimization of the Experimental
Parameters
Figure 7 (a & b) shows the optimum parameters that
give both maximum recovery and grade for shaking
table separation and dry high intensity magnetic.

Table 9 summarizes the obtained optimum

parameters for both separation techniques. The
results of applying the optimum parameters obtained
(Table 9) for shaking table separation and dry high
intensity magnetic separation for concentrate
obtained from shaking table are shown in table 10. It
is shown that a shaking table concentrate with 13.2
% SnO2 and 86.2 % recovery is obtained. In case of
dry high intensity magnetic separation a non
magnetic fraction concentrate with 90.67 % SnO2
and 83.36% recovery is obtained. Figures (8 and 9)
represent the X-ray diffraction of both shaking table
concentrate and non magnetic fraction of dry
magnetic separation. The X -ray diffraction of
shaking table concentrate showed that it contains
ilmenite, cassiterite, hematite, and zircon respectively.
Meanwhile the X-ray diffraction of the non magnetic
concentrate showed that it involves cassiterite, with
little content of zircon.

84.9646
82.8047
80.6448

R e co ve ry %

3.5. Response Surfaces for the Relation of

Recovery of Cassiterite with Different Parameters

78.4849
76.325

3.00
5.00
2.75
4.50
2.50

Stroke length (cm)

4.00
2.25

3.50

Inclination angle (degree)

2.00 3.00

Figure 5a. Response surfaces for the shaking table

concentrate recovery as a function of different factors
(water flow rate 20 l/min and feed rate 250gm/min.)

M. A. Youssef, M.K. Abd El-Rahman, N.H. Helal, M. M. El- Rabiei, S. R. Elsaidy / The Journal of ORE DRESSING 2009

Desirability

3.00

0.295
0.417

85.9647

0.417
0.540

0.540

84.4923

Recovery %

83.0198

2.75

80.075

25.00
400.00

Stroke length (cm)

81.5474

Predicti 0.91
2.50

22.50
325.00
20.00

water flow rate (l/min)

2.25

0.786

250.00
17.50

175.00

Feed rate (gm/min)

0.540

15.00 100.00

Figure 5b. Response surfaces for the shaking table

concentrate recovery as a function of different factors
(inclination angle 4 degree and stroke length 2.5 cm)

0.540

0.663

0.417

2.00
3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Inclination angle (degree)

(a)
97.212

Desirability

100.00

0.381

94.0903

0.381

87.8468

0.536

87.50

84.725

100.00
80.00
87.50
77.50
75.00

Belt speed (rpm)

75.00
62.50

Belt speed (rpm)

Recovery %

90.9685

0.536
0.690

0.690

Predicti 1.00

75.00

62.50

72.50

Splitter inclination (degree)

50.00 70.00

Figure 6a. Response surfaces for the dry magnetic

separation concentrate recovery as a function of (feed
rate 500gm/min.)

50.00
70.00

72.50

75.00

77.50

80.00

Splitter inclination (degree)

(b)
Figure 7. Optimum parameters for shaking table and
dry high ntensity magnetic separation

98.2563
95.1641

Recovery %

92.0719
88.9797
85.8875

100.00
80.00
87.50
77.50
75.00

Belt speed (rpm)

75.00
62.50

72.50

Splitter inclination (degree)

50.00

70.00

Figure 6. Response surfaces for the dry magnetic

separation concentrate recovery as a function of (feed
rate 750gm/min)

Table 9. Optimum parameters for both shaking table

and dry high ntensity magnetic separation
Dry High Intensity Magnetic
Shaking Table Separation
Separation
Inclination
Splitter
74.95
angle
4.13
inclination

(degree)
(degree)
Stroke
Belt speed
73
2.50
length (cm)
(rpm)
Feed rate
Feed rate
742
307.6

(gm/min)
(gm/min)
Water flow

24.22
rate (l/min)

Volume 11 - Issue 22

Table 10. Shaking table and dry high ntensity magnetic separation cassiterite concentrates at optimum
parameters
Shaking Table Separation
Fraction
Weight %
SnO2 %
Recovery %
Concentrate
tail
Total
Fraction
Non magnetic

0.314
99.686
100

13.2
0.0066
0.048

86.2
13.8
100

Cleaning of Shaking Table Concentrate using Dry High Intensity Magnetic Separation
Weight %
SnO2 %
Recovery %
Operational
Overall
Operational
14.5
0.046
90.67
96.7

Magnetic
Total

85.5
100

0.268
0.314

0.51
13.2

3.3
100

Overall
83.36
2.84
86.20

Figure 8. X-ray diffraction for the shaking table concentrate

Figure 9. X-ray diffraction for the non magnetic concentrate

4. CONCLUSIONS
Recovery of cassiterite from Igla Placer ore of
Eastern Desert of Egypt using shaking table gravity
separation and high intensity dry magnetic separation

was successfully achieved. A statistical design using

the Box-Behnken design of experiments was
conducted on both shaking table separation and dry
magnetic separation experiments to investigate the
effect of main combination parameters. A
mathematical model for calculation of recovery and

M. A. Youssef, M.K. Abd El-Rahman, N.H. Helal, M. M. El- Rabiei, S. R. Elsaidy / The Journal of ORE DRESSING 2009

grade for both shaking table and dry magnetic

separation is suggested according to the statistical
experimental design. The best combination desirable
experimental conditions obtained in case of shaking
table separation are inclination angle (4.13 degree),
Stroke length (2.5 cm), feed rate (307.6 gm/min), and
water flow rate (24.22 l/min) and in case of using dry
high intensity magnetic separation are splitter
inclination (74.9 degree), belt speed (73 rpm), and
feed rate (742 gm/min). A shaking table concentrate
containing 13.2 % SnO2 and recovery of 86.2 % by
weight SnO2 was obtained from a feed containing
about 0.061 % SnO2 at the best desirable condition
obtained. Cleaning of this concentrate by using dry
high intensity magnetic separation a final concentrate
with 90.67% SnO2 and recovery of 96.7% SnO2 by
weight was obtained.
REFERENCES
[1]

A. F. Holleman, E. Wiberg, Inorganic

Chemistry, San Diego: Academic Press, (2001).

[2]

Joseph
Watson,
The
stannic
oxide
semiconductor gas sensor in The Electrical
engineering Handbook 3d Edition; Sensors
Nanoscience Biomedical Engineering and
Instruments ed R.C Dorf CRC Press Taylor
and Francis, (2006).

[3]

Wang, Chun-Ming; Wang, Jin-Feng; Su, WenBin, Microstructural morphology and electrical
properties of copper- and niobium-doped tin
dioxide polycrystalline varistors, Journal of the
American Ceramic Society 89 (2006) 2502.

[4]

A. Dibb, M. Cilense, P.R. Bueno, Y. Maniette,

J.A. Varela, and E. Longo, Evaluation of rare
earth oxides doping SnO2.(Co0.25,Mn0.75)Obased varistor System, Materials Research, 9
(2006) 339.

[5]

J.F., Jr. Carlin, Tin recycling in the United

States in 1998, U.S.Geological Survey, circular
1196
(2003)1.
(http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS50041).

[6]

R.G. Taylor, Geology of tin deposits, in

Developments in economic geology, no.11:
New York, NY, Elsevier Scientific Publishing
Company, (1979) 543.

[7]

C.S. Hutchison, Economic deposits and their

tectonic setting. London, The Macmillan Press,
(1983)365.

[8]

K.F.G. Hosking, Mineral concentrations and

hydrocarbon accumulations in the ESCAP
region, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 3 (1988)18.

[9]

W.D. Menzie, B.L. Reed, and D.A. Singer,

Mineral concentrations and hydrocarbon

accumulations in the ESCAP region, Berlin,

Springer-Verlag, 3 (1988) 718.
[10] B.L. Reed, Tin resources. In: Carr, D.D. and
Herz, N. eds, Concise encyclopedia of mineral
resources, Oxford, Pergamon Press., (1989)
426.
[11] C.L. Sainsbury, Tin resources of the world, U.S.
Geological Survey, Bulletin 1301 (1969) 1.
[12] J.F., Jr. Carlin, Tin, U.S. Geological Survey,
Mineral Commodity Summaries, (2008) 176.
[13] L.M. Falcon, The gravity recovery of cassiterite,
Journal of the South African institute of mining
and metallurgy, 82 (1982)112.
[14] A. Gupta and D.S. Yan, Mineral processing
design and operation, Gravity separation,
(2006) 494.
[15] Inc. Carpco, Expanding leadership in
separation technology, Bulletin No. 929 (1992).
[16] Barry A Wills and Tim Napier-Munn, Wills'
Mineral processing technology (Seventh
Edition), Gravity concentration, (2005) 225.
[17] H. C. Voges, Heavy-medium and gravity
separation at Iscor's tin-ore and iron-ore mines,
Journal of the South African institute of mining
and metallurgy, 82 (1982)186.
[18] A. D. Read, A. Whitehead and T. J. N.
Grainger-Allen, Pre-treatment of feed for dry
magnetic separation of fine materials,
International Journal of Mineral Processing, 3
(1976) 343.
[19] R.O. Burt, International Journal of Mineral
Processing, 2 (1975) 219.
[20] M.S. Amin, A tin-tungsten deposits in Egypt,
Econ. Geol., 42 (1947) 637.
[21] Report of the Egyptian mineral resources
authority, Investment chance in Egyptian
mining sector, (2007).
[22] A.H. Sabet, V.B. Tsogoev, S.P. Shibanin, M.B.
El kait, and S. Awad, The placer tin deposits of
Abu dabbab, Igla, and Nuweibi, Annals of the
Geological Survey of Egypt, 6 (1976)169.
[23] G.E.P. Box, D.W. Behnken, Some new three
level designs for the study of quantitative
variables, Technometrics, 2 (1960) 455.