Kia-Sar coal sample processing by flotation

Mohammad Noaparast & A. Ghorbani

Mining Eng. Department, Faculty of Eng., University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT: In order to determine various flotation parameters on the processing of Kia-Sar coal sample,
different tests were carried out in laboratory scale. The type and amount of frother, collector, solid percent,
feed size and pH were specified based on the tests results, regarding feed, concentrate and tailings ash contents.
Results indicate that the best type of collector and frother are fuel oil (1500 g/t) and pine oil (40 g/t) respectively,
at pH = 7. The most efficient feed size was 600 micron with 24 solid percent in pulp.

1 INTRODUCTION
Zir-Abe coal processing plant is located in north of Iran
and in Mazandaran state. It is fed from different coal
mines such as Zir-Abe region coal mines and Kia-Sar
mine which is about 140 km far from Zir-Abe plant.
The lack of coal processing plant in nearby of Kia-
Sar mine, causes to transport run-off-mine coal from
Kia-Sar to Zir-Abe plant. This coal processing plant
includes gravity (jig) using +500 micron particles,
and flotation which its feed is in 500 micron frac-
tion. However run-off-mine coals are delivered from
different coal sites/mines to this plant, as Kia-Sar is
one of them. Since the ash content of coals differ from
one mine to others, so it is significant to maintain ash
percent in an acceptable range.
In this studying the Kia-Sar coal sample was used
in various flotation tests to obtain optimized range
for different parameters which are of course effec-
tive in flotation conditions. These parameters were
feed distribution, pH, collector, frother, solid percent.
Ash contents of concentrates and tailings obtained
from experiments were measured and accordingly the
recovery value of each flotation test was calculated.
Separation efficiency based on Shulz [Shulz, 1970,
Wills, 1997] equation was implemented to compare
various tests results. The Shulz separation efficiency
equation is as following:
where, F and C are feed and concentrate flow rates and
c and f are concentrate and feed coal grades respec-
tively, and m is the theoretical concentrate grade.
Therefore for each flotation test, the value of recovery
and then based on ash contents and coal grades, the
separation efficiency values were calculated. It should
be noted that the reason of estimating of separation
efficiency factor/index was to have a base for selecting
the best tests results.
2 EXPERIMENTAL
In order to perform various type of experiments a
bulk sample from Kia-Sar mine was prepared. Then
the whole sample was divided so that to have about
500 g sample to be used in flotation test. Therefore for
each flotation test, a 500 g sample was used which its
size was about 600 microns. The collector which was
added to pulp of flotation tests was fuel oil [Klimpel,
1985, Weiss, 1985] and frother was pine oil and/or T65
[Weiss, 1985, Aplan, 1991].
The conditioning step was performed before each
flotation test and the total time of conditioning and
concentrating of cleaned coal was about 6 minutes. Of
course this time was achieved according to the some
preliminary tests to obtain the tests setting factors.
After 2 minutes agitating at constant pH, the collec-
tor (fuel oil) was added to pulp. Three minutes after
adding fuel oil, frother (i.e. pine oil) was used. At the
final stage one minute concentrating was performed.
All flotation tests were carried out in laboratory scale,
using 2-liter Denver flotation cell with 1400 r.p.m.
rotor.
Totally 15 flotation tests were done. The feed size
(in all tests) was identical (600 microns) except tests
11, 12 and 13. The feed size was 600 + 300 microns
in test 11, 300 + 150 microns in test 12 and 150
micron in test 13. The solid percent in all tests were
24 percent except tests 7 and 8, in which were 12 and

563

Copyright 2004 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

chap-109 10/8/2004 15: 3 page 564

35 percent respectively. pH value was 7.4 in tests 1 to separation efficiency equation was applied to them.
13, and in tests 14 and 15 were 10 and 4 respectively. It should be noted that in order to determine the ash
The type of frother in tests 1 to 3 and tests 7 to 15 percent of different samples (feed, concentrate and tail-
was pine oil. In tests 5 and 6, T65 was used as frother. ing), a kiln was used which was able to adjust/increase
In tests 1 to 8, and 11 to 15, one drop of frother was the temperature up to 850 centigrade (for 4 hours), and
used in each test. It was 2 drops in test 9 and 0.5 drop a balance with 0.01 g accuracy was the tool of weight
in test 10. In tests 1 and 4, 2000 g/t of collector was measuring.
added, and 2000 g/t of collector was used in tests 3 and
6. In the rest of tests, 1500 g/t of collector was used.
Fuel oil was used as collector in all tests. The details of 3 RESULTS
different flotation tests are tabulated in Tables 1 and 2.
According to the tests done in this project, results To explain the legitimately of performing different
were analyzed to find out the optimum flotation param- tests, it should be presented that the main reason for
eters. However to compare the tests results, the Shulz that was to figure out the optimized conditions of run-
ning the flotation. As it is tabulated in Tables 1 and
Table 1. Type and amount of collector and frothers used in 2, to optimize the amount of fuel oil, tests 1, 2 and 3
different flotation tests. were done, and in tests 4, 5 and 6 pine oil and T65
were compared. To find out the optimum solid per-
Collector Frother
cent, tests 7 and 8 were performed and to determine
Amount the optimum amount of frother (from tests 4, 5 and
Test no. Type Amount (g/t) Type (drop) 6), tests 9 and 10 were carried out. However, tests 11,
12 and 13 were done to specify the effect of feed size
01 fuel oil 1000 pine oil 1 distribution. Finally pH parameter was studied in tests
02 fuel oil 1500 pine oil 1 14 and 15.
03 fuel oil 2000 pine oil 1
Tables 3, 4 and 5 present the weight of concentrates,
04 fuel oil 1000 T65 1
05 fuel oil 1500 T65 1 tailings and ash percent in feeds, concentrates and tail-
06 fuel oil 2000 pine oil 1 ings and relevant recovery and loss figures for different
07 fuel oil 1500 pine oil 1 flotation tests. Of course one of the most important step
08 fuel oil 1500 pine oil 1 is now to select the optimum conditions based on the
09 fuel oil 1500 pine oil 2 estimated recovery (or loss) figures and the ash grades.
10 fuel oil 1500 pine oil 0.5 The classical solution for that is to compare various
11 fuel oil 1500 pine oil 1 results and select the best one. To do the right selection,
12 fuel oil 1500 pine oil 1 the separation efficiency index was employed.
13 fuel oil 1500 pine oil 1
It should be noted that the best concentrate recov-
14 fuel oil 1500 pine oil 1
15 fuel oil 1500 pine oil 1 ered from feed with 27 percent of ash, yielded 11%
ash in test 11. In addition the best recovery was 98%

Table 3. Feeds weights used in different flotation tests,

Table 2. Details of solid percent, pH and feed size used in and results of concentrates and tailings weights obtained in
different flotation tests. each tests.

Test no. pH Solid (%) Size (micron) Test no. Feed (g) Conc. (g) Tail (g)

01 7.4 24 600 01 494 420 74

02 7.4 24 600 02 510 438 72
03 7.4 24 600 03 514 438 76
04 7.4 24 600 04 481 430 51
05 7.4 24 600 05 503 438 65
06 7.4 24 600 06 523 450 73
07 7.4 12 600 07 500 400 100
08 7.4 35 600 08 478 398 80
09 7.4 24 600 09 497 445 52
10 7.4 24 600 10 496 323 173
11 7.4 24 600 + 300 11 498 388 110
12 7.4 24 300 + 150 12 500 436 64
13 7.4 24 150 13 500 430 70
14 10 24 600 14 500 450 50
15 4 24 600 15 500 404 96

564

Copyright 2004 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

chap-109 10/8/2004 15: 3 page 565

in test 4. Of course in test 9, ash percent was 14,
with recovery and loss values of 95.7% and 4.3%
respectively.
Figure 1 shows the trends of recovery and loss val-
ues versus grades of concentrates in different flotation
tests.
The experimental results obtained from flotation
tests were used in shulz separation efficiency pattern/
equation (equation 1). To estimate the separation
efficiency (SE), equation 1 was used. For example in
test 1, SE was calculated as follows:
Table 4. Ash grades in feeds, concentrates and tailings of
flotation tests.
Ash grade (%)
Test no. Feed Conc.
In above calculation, m is the theoretical concentrate
grade which is assumed to be 100%. The grade of
concentrate (c) and feed grade (f) were estimated from
results obtained from test 1 in Table 4. In Table 4 and
test 1 the ash grade for concentrate grade is 19, so the c
in equation 1 for test 1 is calculated as 100 19 = 81,
and the same procedure is applied for the ash grade of
feed in test 1 which 27. Therefore, the amount of f in
equation 1 for test 1 is 100 27 = 73. This procedure
was applied for the all tests, and then SE values were
estimated for them individually which the results are
presented in Table 6.
Table 6 shows the SE figures which were calculated
based on the results of different flotation tests. It is now
possible to compare the estimated SE values (Table 6).
According to the various SE values, the one related to
test 11 (52.8%) is more than others. The maximum and
minimum values of calculated separation efficiencies
are 52.8% (test 11) and 26.2% (test 6), respectively. To
Tail 100

01 27 19 72.2 80
02 27 17 87.6
Recovery (%)

03 27 20 67.3 60
04 27 20 86.0 recovery
05 27 20 74.2 loss
06 27 21 64.0 40
07 27 18 63.0
08 27 20 61.8 20
09 27 14 69.8
10 27 22 51.3 0
11 23 11 65.3 75 80 85 90
12 21 16 55.1
13 21 16 51.7 Concentrate Grade (%)
14 27 22 72.3
15 27 16 73.3 Figure 1. The trend of recovery and loss versus grades of
concentrates obtained from different flotation tests.

Table 6. Separation efficiency values for different flotation

Table 5. Recovery and loss values in each flotation tests. tests.

Test no. Recovery (%) Loss (%) Test no. m (%) f (%) c (%) SE (%)

01 94.3 5.7 01 100 73 81 34.5

02 97.6 2.4 02 100 73 83 43.6
03 93.4 6.6 03 100 73 80 30.3
04 98.0 2.0 04 100 73 80 31.8
05 95.4 4.6 05 100 73 80 30.9
06 93.1 6.9 06 100 73 79 26.2
07 89.9 10.1 07 100 73 82 36.5
08 91.2 8.8 08 100 73 80 29.6
09 95.7 4.3 09 100 73 78 22.7
10 76.7 23.3 10 100 73 86 43.0
11 90.0 10.0 11 100 77 89 52.8
12 92.7 7.3 12 100 79 84 26.3
13 91.4 8.6 13 100 79 84 25.9
14 96.2 3.8 14 100 73 78 22.8
15 93.0 7.0 15 100 73 84 45.1

565

Copyright 2004 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK

chap-109 10/8/2004 15: 3 page 566
determine the optimum conditions of flotation tests, a
discussion should be performed using tests results.
It should be noted that the average value of sep-
aration figures (Table 6) is calculated as 33.47%
(totally considering all flotation tests) and therefore the
range of separation efficiency with 95% confidence
should be between 15.43% (minimum) and 51.51%
(maximum).
4 DISCUSSION
In order to determine the optimum amount of collec-
tor (fuel oil), tests 1, 2 and 3 were performed which
their SE values were estimated, 34.5%, 43.6% and
30.3%, respectively. Therefore it figures out that the
test 2 presented the highest SE and the best condi-
tions, as weight of concentrate and recovery in test
2 were high, as well. In tests 1, 2, increasing collec-
tor from 1000 g/t to 1500 g/t caused an increase in the
weight of concentrate and recovery while ash content
in concentrate decreased. However increasing collec-
tor amount from 1500 g/t to 2000 g/t made almost no
change in concentrate weight while recovery value
decreased and ash percent (in concentrate) increased.
Therefore among tests 1, 2 and 3, the condition of test
2 yielded the best results, and is accordingly selected
as the most effective test. Figure 2 shows the variation
of estimated separation efficiency values for different
flotation tests.
Tests 4, 5 and 6 were performed identical to tests 1,
2 and 3, except that T65 was used as frother in tests 4, 5
and 6. SE values of tests 4, 5 and 6 are less than that of
test 2. Therefore it appears that pine oil produced better
results than T65. Albeit in test 6, concentrate weight
was more than those in tests 4 and 5, but ash percents
were also high, and thus its recovery was lower than
those in tests 4 and 5. SE value in test 4 (31.75%) is
higher than SE values in tests 5 and 6. It shows that
the collector increase from 1000 g/t to 2000 g/t did not
100
Separation Efficiency (%)
80
60
40
20
0 tion and pH. To compare the results, Shulz separation
1 3 5 7 9 11
Tests Numbers
Figure 2. Variation of estimated separation efficiency (SE)
values in different tests.
Copyright 2004 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK
change the ash contents very much (20%, 20% and
21% for tests 4, 5 and 6, respectively), as recovery in
test 4 was higher than tests 5 and 6.
Tests 7 and 8 with 12% and 35% of solid percent
were carried out to achieve the most convenient pulp
solid percentage, while in test 2 was 24%. Results of
tests 2, 7 and 8 indicate that the highest SE value is
that of test 2, accordingly the 24% was the optimum
amount of solid percent in pulp.
In tests 1 to 8, one drop of frother was used. However
tests 9 and 10 were performed to obtain the SE values
for 0.5 and 2 drops of frother, respectively. In these
tests, 1 drop of frother in test 2 presented the highest
SE value (43.58% for test 2 and 22.70% for test 9, and
42.95% for test 10) and higher recovery (97.6% in test
2, 95.7% and 76.7% in tests 9 and 10). Ash contents
in test 10 (14%) was lower than tests 2 and 9, but its
recovery was too low (76.7%).
Tests 11, 12 and 13 were carried out to specify
the best coal particle size distribution of flotation
feed. Therefore three samples in size of 600 + 300,
300 + 150 and 150 micron were separately tested.
The SE in test 11 is the highest SE value (52.78%)
which is higher than SE in test 2. Products of test 11
had the lowest ash percent (11%) and its recovery was
less than test 2. It is remarkable to be pointed out that
the discrepancy of test 2 with test 11, is the feed size
(600 + 300 micron in test 11 and 300 micron in
test 2). Therefore, it is clear that some 300 micron
particles were in test 2.
Results of tests 2 and 11 indicate that achieving
8.4% increase in SE in test 11, the feed distribution
has to be restricted to a certain range of 600 + 300
micron which is not practically accessible and com-
mon practice especially in industrial scale. However,
results obtained from test 2 remains more applicable
than those of other experiments.
The effects of pH changes were also studied (pH in
test 2 was 7.4). In test 14, pH was 10 and it was 4 in
test 15. Results of tests 14, 15 and 2 indicate that SE
in test 15 is 45.09% which is 1.5% more than that of
test 2. However comparing results of tests 2, 14 and 15
confirmed that the optimum pH is that of test 2.
5 CONCLUSION
Kia-Sar coal sample was studied using flotation
method to investigate on the effect of various param-
eters such as; amount of collector, type and amount
of frother, solid percentage in pulp, particle distribu-
13 15 efficiency was effectively employed. According to the
results obtained from different flotation tests and esti-
mated SE values using Shulz equation, it is concluded
that the most effective and applicable (in industrial
scale) condition was achieved in test 2 with using
566
chap-109 10/8/2004 15: 3 page 567

1500 g/t of fuel oil as collector, 1 drop of pine oil as
frother, 24% of solid in pulp (by weight), feed size of
600 micron and pH of 7.4%. Under this condition
separation efficiency was 43.58% and recovery and
ash percent were 97.6% and 11%, respectively.
REFERENCES
Shulz, N.F. 1970. Separation efficiency. Transactions of
AIME.Vol. 247. pp.56.
Wills, B.A. 1997. Mineral processing technology. 6th edition.
Butterworth-Heinemann. Oxford. pp.1920.
Kilmpel, R.R. 1985. The industrial flotation system. In indus-
trial practice of fine coal processing. Klimpel, R.R. &
Luckie, P.T. Editors, Society of Mining Engineers (SME).
pp.113127.
Weiss, N.L. 1985. SME mineral processing handbook. Soci-
ety of Mining Engineers (SME). Vol. 1. pp.549, 550.
Aplan, F.F. & Arnold, B.J. 1991. Part 2: Wet particle con-
centration, Section 3: Flotation. In coal preparation. 5th
edition. Leonard, J.W. & Hardinge, B.C. Editors, Society
of Mining Engineers (SME). pp.450485.

567

Copyright 2004 Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK