News LTR 13

For Hydrometallurgy and Mineral Processing
Volume 13 May 2007
The Milpillas Project

(page 2)
Circuit Configuration and Extractant Formulation Considerations

page 5
MEUM Cytecs SX Design Tool

page 9
Critical Operational Variables at Los Pelambres

page 15
Improving Flotation of Copper Oxide Ores with AERO Promoters

page 19
New Customized Collector Blends for Improved Cu Recovery

page 22
China Seminar on ACORGA Extraction Reagents

page 24
Responsible Care a Cytec Priority

page 25
Chile Seminar on Solvent Extraction and Mineral Processing

page 26
Organizational News
page 27
Upcoming Industry Events

page 28
The Milpillas Project

Adrin Hernndez Pacheco, Chief Metallurgist, Compaa Minera La Parrea, Cananea, Mxico Jose Luis Noyola, Plant Superintendent, Compaa Minera La Parrea, Cananea, Mxico
Sonora Desert
Introduction Compaa Minera La Parrea, Grupo Peoles, commissioned its first copper solvent extraction (SX) plant in July 2006. This extends the companys processing expertise beyond its traditional base in flotation of primarily zinc, lead, and copper. In addition to the usual challenges in designing and constructing a new plant, Minera La Parrena recognized that their workforce would be new to SX operation. They addressed this additional challenge by focusing on training both before and after commissioning. This article gives a description of the project and discusses some of the actions taken to address the training needs. Description of the Project The Milpillas Project property is located 25 kilometers West of Cananea, in the state of Sonora, Mexico. This is an underground mine and copper is produced through leach-solvent extraction-electrowinning. The plant is designed for a production rate of 65,000 tons of cathode copper per year (tpa), but it will produce 45,000 tons per year during the first stage of operation of the project (four years). The project includes the development of a crushing, heap-
leach, solvent extraction and electrowinning (SXEW) plant and the facilities directly related to the process. The actual mining rate will vary depending on the grade of the ore, but the annual mining rate is expected to be more than three million tons. Process Description Crushing The crushing plant is designed to handle a variable ore feed rate. Initial crushing rates will be approximately 6.4 tons per day in the early stages of the project and will achieve its full design capacity of 9.3 tons per day in the fifth year of operation. The crushed ore cut-off will be one-half inch with the coarse material sent directly to leaching and the finer material sent first to agglomeration. Leaching The leach process is designed to process fine crushed ore, which has been treated with a diluted acid solution in a rotary agglomerating drum. The agglomerated product is deposited on leach-heaps by trucks and then irrigated with raffinate solution from the solvent extraction plant. The permanent leach heaps are on a lined pad with six-meter high beds. The heaps are located approximately 400 meters from the agglomerating drum and cover an area of approximately 600,000 m2. Solvent Extraction The SXEW operation is designed to process 1,090 m3/h PLS flow with a nominal 7.0 gpl Cu grade and 92% recovery target. Total production capacity is 65,000 tpa of Grade A LME cathode copper. The train design consists of two extraction stages and two stripping (re-extraction) stages (E1, E2, R2, R1). The SX plant design uses Outokumpus Vertical Smooth Flow (VSF) reverse flow technology. The extraction mixers are cylindrical FRP VSF-DOP tanks. Each extraction mixer-settler has a Dispersion Overflow Pump (DOP) impeller and two in-series VSF-SPIROK variable speed agitators. Recirculation capacity is provided for both the aqueous and the
SPIROK, VSF and DOP are trademarks of Outotec Oyj.
organic phases in both of the extract stages. The operational O/A ratio can be modified between 0.75 1.25:1 to control phase continuity. In the stripping stage, a DOP impeller box is used along with a SPIROK agitator box, both the same size as the extraction mixers. In these stages, there is only an aqueous recycle. All settlers are covered to protect them from evaporation and dirt. These units have a fire protection system with automatic detection and manual extinguishing by water. The solvent extraction operation was commissioned with ACORGA M5774 extraction reagent. The raffinate flows by gravity to the raffinate tank. This tank initially has a distribution fence to reduce the flow rate. The design also includes coalescing fences and air bubbling to help coalescence of remaining organic droplets. The organic and crud on the surface of the tank is periodically skimmed into a collection sump. The solution collected can be then taken to the crud storage tank for recovery of the organic. The loaded organic passes to an aftersettler which acts as a feed tank of loaded organic. The incoming organic goes through a distribution fence for entrainment and settling of any solids. The organic then exits through a dump towards a pump well where it is pumped to the stripping stages. The organic goes through two stripping stages. The final rich electrolyte goes through an after-settler and then filters to remove any entrained organic. The filtered rich electrolyte is stored in the
rich electrolyte tank and pumped through a plate heat exchanger, where the heat is transferred from the lean to rich electrolyte. If necessary, a second exchanger using hot water is used to maintain the entering electrolyte to cleaning cells at a minimum temperature of 45C. The lean electrolyte from the cleaning cells is mixed with the lean electrolyte returning from the commercial cells of the circuit and goes into the recirculation tank. Electrolyte water make-up is added to this tank. After the lean electrolyte goes through the electrolyte heat exchanger, it is pumped to the SX plant. Electrolyte acid adjustment is made using a static mixer in the line going to the second stripper (R2). Electrowinning Electrowinning cells are placed in two electric circuits of 80 cells each. Each circuit has two rows of 40 cells. Each circuit is fed by two 6-pulse halfcapacity rectifiers in parallel. One circuit (East) contains 22 cleaning cells and 58 circulation cells. During the first stage of the project, the West wing will have only 30 cells in two parallel sections of 15 cells each. Provisions will be made in order to expand the west tankhouse after a year. Each cell has 85 anodes of a lead/ calcium/tin alloy and 84 permanent stainless steel cathodes to be used for the electro-deposition of copper. All cells are made of polymer-estervinyl concrete and are fed with direct current in two electric circuits. From the hydraulic and electric point of view, the cells are in parallel and in series, respectively.
The electrolyte is fed by pumps from the electrolyte recirculation tank to the two wings of the electrowinning tankhouse, using one line with its pump for each wing of the tankhouse. The feed tubing enters on each side of the installation of the washing/scrubbing machine. The electrolyte enters each cell in the end corresponding to the central walkway through a distribution ring, which homogeneously delivers the electrolyte along the entire length of the cell. The acid mist control is provided by a hood system including collector funnels, gas washing and a duct system. Cathodes are harvested and processed by an automatic cathode stripping machine which is part of an automatic overhead crane, both pieces of equipment using Outokumpu technology. These machines harvest cathodes from the cells in seven-day cycles. On harvesting, the cathodes are lifted, washed with warm water and taken to the receiving rails of the stripping machine. Cathodes are then washed again with a hot water sprinkler. Here the copper cathodes are stripped and stacked. The cathodes are then weighed, sampled, corrugated, strapped, and labeled for shipment on the unloading conveyor. Cathode bundles are taken out of the electrowinning tankhouse by the forklift to the cathode warehouse prior to shipping. Training Although Minera La Parrea has years of experience in mining and flotation, this did not extend to Cu SX. Rather than hire outside people to come into the organization, there was an intentional focus to develop the capability internally. The project management team was selected early. The group participated regularly in industry conferences and seminars and was actively involved with design engineers. The high level of exposure to the SX process developed the technical foundation to complement the already strong mining operational management capabilities.
3
Training of the operators was also recognized as important. Although the operation is in the vicinity of the established Cananea mining community, the operator workforce is actual drawn from a different community, Magdalena, which does not have a mining operation. To address the training needs: SX training sessions were set up prior to commissioning;
A strong emphasis on commitments to technical support was included in the extractant bid package; and Additional SX training sessions were scheduled post-commissioning to reinforce the basics of the operation and address any new questions that came up once the operators gained some experience.
Figure 1: Milpillas project Configuration 2E+2S
Raffinate PLS
5.60 gpl
0.56 gpl (R= 90.06%)
Extraction Section
MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.10 E1
3.07
MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.10
4.19
E2
1.91 gpl Stripped (UOT=0.34) 1.91 gpl
6.49 gpl Loaded (87.0%) 6.49 gpl
Stripping Section
MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 3.20 S1
2.79

37.82
S2
Spent 35.00 gpl
Advance 49.67 gpl
PLS streams(s); Organic circuit; Electrolyte SE.. Stage Efficiency; OA.. Organic to Aqueous Phase Ratio; R.. PLS Recovery; UOT.. Unit Operating Transfer; 0.xxF.. Stream fraction of main flow
Figure 2: McCabe Thiele Diagram

Extraction section
60.00 8.00
Stripping section
Copper in Aqueous phase 1.50 3.00 4.50 Copper in Aqueous phase 6.00
Copper in Organic phase
0.0
0.00
30.0 0.00
37.50
2.00
45.00
4.00
52.50
6.00
2.00 4.00 6.00 Copper in Organic phase
8.00
Considerations for Circuit Configuration and Extractant Formulation Selection

Matthew Soderstrom, Cytec Industries Inc., Global Applications Technology Group Manager, Phoenix, USA Troy Bednarski, Cytec Industries Inc., Applications Technology Group Specialist, Phoenix, USA Introduction There are multiple configuration options to be considered when designing a new SX circuit or reconfiguring an existing operation. The choice of optimum configuration and extractant is rarely a straightforward answer and requires an indepth assessment of both capital and operating costs. One new issue with configuration selection for Cu SX that should be considered is the question of ownership of circuit designs. Historically configurations have been freely discussed and shared within the industry. Unfortunately that practice is now changing. Over recent years a number of patents have been granted and new patent applications submitted which may influence the rights of engineering houses and operators to use certain designs. Due diligence is now required to not only understand the real benefits of one configuration/ extractant combination over another, but also to understand the long term commercial implications of issued and potential patents. Cytec does not patent circuit designs. When we evaluate circuits and have reason to belief there may be an issue we will make others aware in the initial stages of design so all key factors can be considered when comparing circuits not wait until configurations are locked into designs or are built. This article shows some of the differences in performance that would be expected for two example configurations. In addition to flexibility of how the solution flow is configured, the potential influence of extractant formulation on performance is also highlighted. Configuration Design Comparison The optimum choice of circuit configuration is dependent on a number of factors, including the Pregnant Leach Solution (PLS) chemical composition and pH, electrolyte copper and acid concentration, and overall circuit operating philosophy whether it is for maximized copper recovery or copper transfer and reagent utilization. Once the configuration has been chosen it is important to choose the optimum reagent formulation to maximize the benefits.
2+2 verses a 3+1 circuit configuration

The 2+2 configuration shown in figure 1 is a common configuration that is still widely used today. Although it is difficult to make a blanket statement about its suitability for a given operation (full McCabe Thiele analysis should be completed for the specified feed), this configuration tends to be favored for operations with higher grade feeds, lower pH and/or weak electrolyte conditions that would benefit from an additional strip stage. A 3+1 configuration (i.e., plant with three extract stages in series and one strip stage, as shown in figure 2) can also provide positive results depending on the specific process conditions and extractant choice. However, it should be noted, that there is a patent application pending that may cover this configuration in the US as well as other countries. For reference, see US application 20040103756A1. This application may have an impact on an operators ability to use this configuration longer term depending on whether the patent is eventually granted.
Historically configurations have been freely discussed and shared within the industry. Unfortunately that practice is now changing.
5
Figure 1: 2E+2E Configuration

DESCRIPTION: ACORGA M5640 PLS 5.00 gpl MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00 E1 MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00
4.03
Raffinate
0.25 gpl (R= 94.92%)
Extraction Section
1.90
E2
2.38 gpl Stripped (66.6%)
7.13 gpl Loaded (85.6%) 7.13 gpl
2.38 gpl
Stripping Section
3.15

36.61
S2
Spent 35.00 gpl
Advance 45.01 gpl
Figure 2: 3E+1S Configuration

DESCRIPTION: ACORGA M5640 PLS 5.00 gpl MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00 E1 MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00
6.77
Raffinate
0.25 gpl (R= 95.06%)
Extraction Section
3.82
1.35
E2
4.03
E3
7.95gpl Loaded (95.4%) 7.95 gpl
3.20 gpl
Stripping Section

Spent 35.00 gpl Advance 45.03 gpl
Table 1 shows a comparison of the recoveries achievable using the two configurations and three different lean electrolyte conditions: (1) a relatively weak electrolyte 35 gpl Cu, 160 gpl H2SO4, (2) 35 gpl Cu, 180 gpl H2SO4, (3) and a relatively strong electrolyte 35 gpl Cu and 200 gpl H2SO4. Modeling conditions: 15 vol% ACORGA M5640 extraction reagent 95% Stage Efficiency 1:1 Extract O/A ratio Advancing to 45 gpl Cu in strip
As shown, the expected difference between the configurations is highly dependent on the specific feed conditions. Under these conditions the 3+1 configuration shows an advantage when the stronger electrolyte is used (<1%). The 2+2 configuration shows the advantage when the weaker electrolyte is used (5-7%). The expected recovery difference between the two configurations is far out weighed by the variation in PLS pH and electrolyte acid concentration.
Standard Series Parallel Configuration vs. Interlaced series parallel

Another common configuration widely used in the industry is a standard series parallel configuration as shown in figure 3. A number of operations have converted to this type of configuration to allow higher PLS throughput as copper grades decrease. As shown the barren organic exiting the strip stage enters the parallel stage followed by the series. An alternative configuration to the standard series parallel is sometimes referred to as an interlaced series-parallel configuration or an optimum series parallel. In this configuration the barren organic first contacts the aqueous solution from the first extract stage, followed by the parallel stage as shown in figure 4. This type of configuration often shows slight advantages over the standard series parallel in terms of achieving a higher average recovery. However, it should be noted that this configuration may be subject to a granted US patent. For reference see US20040261579. This configuration may also be subject to pending patent applications in other countries at various stages of prosecution. The longer term status of these applications is uncertain, particularly in Chile, where a mining company is currently opposing the patent. Modeling was completed to show the difference between the two configurations under the following conditions. Modeling Conditions: 20 vol% ACORGA M5640 extraction reagent 95% Stage Efficiency 1:1 Extract O/A ratio Electrolyte 35gpl Cu;180 gpl H2SO4 advancing to 45 gpl Cu in strip As shown, the interlaced configuration achieves a higher average recovery than the standard series parallel circuit under these conditions. However, by contacting the Interlaced parallel feed with partially loaded organic, the ability to achieve high recovery from this stream is limited. The recovery achievable in the parallel stage will also be much more sensitive to feed changes. This tends to be more important if the raffinate from the parallel stage will be used for additional metal recovery (i.e. cobalt recovery).
TABLE 1 Expected copper recoveries

Lean Electrolyte (gpl Cu/Acid) 35/160 35/160 35/160 35/160 35/160 35/180 35/180 35/180 35/180 35/180 35/200 35/200 35/200 35/200 35/200 PLS Cu Grade (gpl) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 PLS pH 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 2+2 Configuration Recovery (%) 92.3 90.7 88.7 82.8 75.7 94.9 93.7 92.2 87.5 81.2 96.3 95.4 94.2 90.5 85.2 3+1 Configuration Recovery (%) 86.9 84.9 82.5 76.0 68.5 95.1 93.6 91.6 85.7 78.4 97.3 96.4 95.1 90.7 84.2
Figure 3: Conventional Series-parallel Configuration

DESCRIPTION: ACORGA M5640 PLS 3.00 gpl MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00 E1
6.51
Raffinate
0.20 gpl (R= 93.38%)
Raffinate
0.26 gpl (R= 91.39%)
PLS 3.00 gpl MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00 E2

5.78
Extraction Section
0.93

8.58 gpl Loaded (86.4%) 8.58 gpl
3.03 gpl
Stripping Section

Figure 4: Interlaced Series-parallel Configuration

Raffinate PLS MixerSettler E1 MixerSettler E2 MixerSettler S1 Advance Spent Raffinate MixerSettler E3
PLS
Overall the difference between the configurations for a given reagent is not great, and it would be possible to achieve similar recoveries in one configuration versus the other by optimizing reagent formulation, slightly increasing reagent concentration for a given reagent, altering the O/A ratios, or altering the solution conditions. Figure 5: Effect of Modifier Ration on Isotherm
TABLE 2 Expected copper recoveries PLS Cu Grade (gpl) 3 3 3 PLS pH 2.0 1.7 1.5 Standard Parallel Recovery 91.0 89.6 87.8 Standard Series Recovery 93.4 91.2 88.4 Interlaced Parallel Recovery 89.2 87.0 84.4 Interlaced Series Recovery 96.7 95.7 94.3
Additional modifier
16.00 55.00
Additional modifier
12.00
Cu in Aqueous phase ACORGA M5640 ACORGA M5910
Cu in Organic phase
40.00
4.00
45.00
8.00
50.00
ACORGA M5640 ACORGA M5910 2.00 3.00 4.00 Cu in Organic phase 5.00
0.00
2.00
4.00 6.00 Cu in Aqueous phase
8.00
Formulation Considerations For a given configuration it is necessary to consider not only the configuration and feed conditions but also the reagent choice. Cytec provides a full range of customized formulations to optimize reagent performance considering both the solutions being processed and the specific configuration. The strength of the reagent formulation (or its ability to extract copper) may be altered by choosing alternative modifiers, alternative oximes, or varying the ratio of oxime to modifier within the formulation. The isotherms below show how a reagent formulation can be altered to affect the extract and stripping isotherms. Both reagents contain the same type and concentration of oxime but have different concentrations of modifier. The higher the modifier content the more readily the formulation will strip. However a higher modifier content can also depress the extract isotherm. The optimum amount of modifier will depend on the configuration chosen. In a 2+2 circuit, due to the use of two strip stages, a strong reagent formulation can be used without sacrificing strip performance. Use of a strong formulation generates a very steep extract isotherm, allowing higher recoveries to be
achieved. The advantages of a 2+2 over a 3+1 configuration is most evident when the lean electrolyte has a lower acid concentration. At higher acid concentrations a single strip stage may be sufficient. In a 3+1 circuit, three extract stages in series favors the use of a weaker formulation over that used in a 2+2 circuit. Although the extract isotherm is slightly depressed the extra extract stage still allows high recovery while achieving sufficient stripping performance in a single stage. In a series parallel configuration, care should be taken to choose the extractant that will provide the optimum performance regarding either reagent utilization or achieving optimum recovery of a given stream. In general: more extract stages favors a weak formulation more strip stages favors a strong formulation higher feed grades or lower pH favors a strong formulation Lower electrolyte copper or higher electrolyte acid concentrations favors a strong formulation Although there are a number of configurations that have been considered, piloted and implemented, a large portion of
35.00
0.0
1.00
the optimization of a circuit is dependent on the reagent chosen. Summary The examples described above show some of the differences in performance that can be achieved by adjusting configurations and metallurgical parameters. These are just a few cases of a nearly endless list of potential combination of options. Cytec will help design and recommend the optimum configuration/extractant combination, but Cytec does not patent circuit configurations. We work together with operators and engineers. Cytec will supply reagents for any specific circuit configuration, but operators should be fully aware of the patent landscape. It is important to understand the cost/risk differences between circuits and the potential consequences of choosing one circuit configuration over another especially if intellectual property for the configuration is purported to be owned by a third party. As in most situations, the final decision for configuration and extractant is a combination of many factors. The important point is that there are always many options available to a plant to meet new and changing operational challenges. Cytec is here to help.
MEUM
Cytecs Cu SX Design Tool
Keith Cramer, Cytec Industries Inc., Marketing Manager, West Paterson, NJ, USA Introduction MEUM is a computer program that is used to design and evaluate solvent extraction (SX) circuits. The program was developed by Cytec and has been used to model copper solvent extraction circuits for over twenty years. MEUM is the enduser version of Cytecs internal MINCHEM modeling program (MINCHEM End-User Module). The ability of MEUM to generate quick, accurate answers has made it a valuable asset for evaluating new-plant circuit design; examining existing plant reconfiguration options; and optimizing operating parameters existing operations. MEUM is the most flexible tool available to provide accurate answers to how an SX plant will operate under proposed conditions as well as answer how well an existing operation is running under current conditions. The experience of Cytec specialists in working with SX circuits and the MEUM program together provide a powerful tool to create valuable solutions to design and operational challenges. How MEUM Works MEUMs capabilities build on flow sheet modeling techniques of standard chemical engineering process development software. However, the primary exception is the focus that was placed on the user-interface of the program. The Mimic Diagram portion of the program allows a user to make changes to a diagram of the circuit and visually see changes to the number of stages and distribution of flows. There are two modes of operation, which include circuit analysis and design. Calculations At the heart of the program is a flowsheeting executive that allows connection of process operating units by process flow streams. Resulting circuits are solved by iterative calculation procedures. In the MEUM system there are process models for the common operating units encountered in SX plants mixer-settlers, blenders (tanks), and splitters (divided flows). The system is open-ended. Additional models for operations as yet unforeseen could be added to the system as required. This has been simplified by the use of object oriented programming techniques. As with all process modeling systems the process streams define compositions, flow rates and state data. In petrochemical modeling systems the phase equilibrium relationships are computed by thermodynamic models (e.g. equations of state, activity coefficients, electrolyte theory). None of the standard methods used in petrochemicals modeling are directly applicable to SX systems which simultaneously combine strong, partially dissociated aqueous electrolyte streams with organic solutions that also contain partially dissociated species. MEUM has a number of methods for handling these systems including a predictive method developed by, and proprietary to, Cytec. This method can predict the distribution of copper between pregnant leach solution (PLS) and electrolyte solutions for most SX extraction reagents over a wide range of concentrations. MEUM can also handle lab generated isotherm data. Interface The user does not communicate directly with the flowsheeting executive. Instead an interface has been written which simplifies the setting up of the operating units and their associated process streams. The current MS-Windows based interface was written in 1994 and has been refined continuously since then so as to accommodate changing operational strategies in the industry. With this interface the user constructs a mimic diagram on screen through direct interaction. With simple mouse clicks and/or data entry the user can designate parallel feeds, splitting and recombination of streams and operating parameters for the processing units. The system then constructs the flowsheet using this diagram allocating the appropriate number of process streams and their connections. Though not applicable to MEUM, there are other interfaces to the executive that can allow for non-interactive model building from an external file. Operating Modes MEUM models SX processes in two modes, design and analysis. In design mode the user may specify either phase ratios (i.e. the relative flow rates of organic and aqueous streams to operating units or cascades) or desired terminal compositions (i.e. raffinate and advance electrolyte compositions). The unknowns are then computed by the system. In analysis mode selected process measurements may be entered directly onto the mimic diagram and, provided that a required minimum of such data have been entered, the system computes the remaining compositions and operating efficiencies of all units in the circuit. MEUM Capabilities MEUM has successfully modeled a range of circuits from the simplest to the most complex circuits seen in the copper SX industry to date. Some features that can be combined to provide numerous possible circuits are highlighted in figures 1 and 2 below. Figure 1 shows a diagram for a simple 2-extract, 1-strip circuit. Figure 2 shows a circuit that can be considered using several of the design features of MEUM.
9
Figure 1 Simple 2E+1S Circuit

DESCRIPTION: Simple Cu SX Circuit with ACORGA extractant PLS 5.00 gpl MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00 E1
4.63
Raffinate
0.33 gpl (R= 93.38%)
Extraction Section
2.27

2.69 gpl Stripped (UOT = 0.31) 2.69 gpl
7.35 gpl Loaded (88.3%) 7.35 gpl
Stripping Section

Figure 2 Complex Circuit Incorporation Many Possible Design Features

DESCRIPTION: Complex Cu SX Circuit with ACORGA extractant Raffinate PLS 5.00 gpl MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00 E1
0.81 gpl (0.40F)
Raffinate
0.12 gpl (R= 92.37%)
Raffinate
0.13 gpl (R= 93.31%)
PLS 3.00 gpl (0.20F) MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.39 E2
PLS 2.00 gpl MixerSettler

4.85 5.97
Extraction Section
0.81 1.18 6.51
SE = 95% OA = 1.00 E3
4.10 gpl (40%) Stripped (UOT = 0.23) 4.10 gpl
4.10 gpl (60%) 9.80 gpl Loaded (70.6%) (50%) 9.80 gpl 4.10 gpl (50%) 9.80 gpl
Stripping Section

Spent 35.00 gpl Advance 49.24 gpl Advance 49.24 gpl

Spent 35.00 gpl
Included in the theoretical circuit shown in Figure 2: E1 aqueous advance has a bleed of this aqueous going out of the SX circuit at a proportion of 0.4 times the flow and at the concentration of 0.81 gpl Cu. An additional 3-gpl PLS feed is added into the E2 mixer at 0.2 times the new aqueous flow (1-0.4=0.6 times original E1 flow rate). The combined E1 aqueous advance and additional E2 PLS have a flow-weighted average Cu concentration of 1.18 gpl Cu entering into the E2 mixer. The E2 O/A ratio at the new flow rate is 1.39/1. The raffinate leaving E2 has 0.12 gpl Cu. The total flow-weighted average for the E1 and E2 cascade
10
is 92.4% this takes into account the different PLS grades and different Cu concentrations of aqueous streams leaving this SX cascade unit. E3 is a 1-extract cascade with a separate 2 gpl PLS feed. A bleed of barren organic flow is taken from the barren organic tank, sent through E3, and then re-combined with the rest of the organic flow before entering E2. The combined organic Cu values have a flow-weighted average Cu value of 4.85 gpl Cu entering into the E2 stage. Two strip stages are shown, each with their own organic and lean electrolyte feed streams. The organic and electrolyte are evenly split between the circuits so they effectively act as twin strip stages. The electrolyte could flow in series between the strip stages as well.
One may rightly ask, why would I possibly design such a complex circuit? Obviously this type of circuit is not meant for most operations, but it does highlight options that can be simulated. One or more of these possible features can be employed, especially for operating plants that need to reconfigure their circuits to adapt to changing conditions, or for new operations that may need to deal with multiple, complex PLS streams and specific requirements for raffinate streams. Benefits for Circuit Design and Optimization One of the best features of MEUM is its speed in accurately predicting the performance of nearly any circuit one can imagine. This allows someone to quickly explore those offthe-cuff ideas that some day could form the first seeds of the next innovation in SX plant design. Quantifying the benefit of changes is always necessary when justifying projects, whether large of small. MEUM provides this necessary data. In addition, the display and multiple report formats provide excellent tools for augmenting the technical discussions within a report by adding visual explanations to a presentation. Examples of Circuit Design Comparisons The following range of configurations was evaluated in Table 1 Example Circuit % Cu Recovery Values
Configuration 2E+2E+2S 1E+3E+2S Interlaced 2E+2E+2S* Split organic 2E+2E+2S Extract O/A 1.5/1 Split organic 2E+2E+2S Extract O/A 3/1 2 trains 2+1
less than twenty minutes using the MEUM program. What is presented is one evaluation measuring the % Cu recovery for a two PLS stream circuit under different configurations. One could also complete the analysis to show the difference in extractant concentration to achieve the same % Cu recovery target. Which of these configurations is best? That depends largely on the other considerations for the specific operation. If one is dealing with existing mixer/settlers, there may be limitations on flow capacity between different units that may make one of the split-organic circuits better. If it is a new plant, the independence of two separate trains may be better. Also, by varying flow distributions within each configuration, one may also be able to determine each proposed circuits optimum operation set-up, which may provide an even stronger recommendation. The final interpretation is typically a combination of several considerations. Each configuration could also be modeled with one less strip stage (except 2E+1S). They would each require approximately 10 v/o more extractant to achieve a similar Cu recovery under these high Cu PLS conditions. This gives a quick indication of the benefit of the extra capital expense for an additional strip mixer/settler as compared to running at higher reagent concentration (higher operating costs).
PLS 1 % Cu Recovery 86.0 90.1 93.6 91.7 94.6 94.0
PLS 2 % Cu Recovery 95.5 85.6 93.5 91.7 94.6 94.0
Avg. Recovery 90.8 87.8 93.5 91.7 94.6 94.0
* See Outokumpu patent application WO/02/092863; May 2001 priority date. 30v/o ACORGA M5640; PLS 15 gpl Cu, pH 2, extract O/A 3/1; Lean Electrolyte 35/190, 45 gpl advance
Figure 3 2E+2E+2S
Raffinate PLS 15.00 gpl MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 3.00 E1
9.42 2.10 gpl (R= 85.98%)
Raffinate
0.67 gpl (R= 95.52%)

8.46
Extraction Section
4.98
2.32

4.24
E4
12.76 gpl Loaded (76.1%) 12.76 gpl
Stripping Section
5.06

36.51
S2
Spent 35.00 gpl
Advance 45.00 gpl
11
Figure 4 1E+3E+2S

9.03
1.49 gpl (R= 90.09%)
Raffinate
2.16 gpl (R= 85.59%)

8.12
Extraction Section
4.67
1.94

7.97

12.47 gpl Loaded (74.4%) 12.47 gpl
Stripping Section
5.04

36.54
S2
Spent 35.00 gpl
Advance 45.00 gpl
Figure 5 Interlaced 2E+2E+2S
5.33 gpl (R= 64.48%)
Raffinate
0.97 gpl (R= 93.56%)
Raffinate
0.98 gpl (R= 81.62%)
PLS 15.00 gpl MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 3.00

9.81
PLS 5.33 gpl MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 3.00

5.76
Extraction Section
2.84

5.14
E2
E3
E4
13.04 gpl Loaded (77.8%) 13.04 gpl
Stripping Section
5.07

36.48
S2
Spent 35.00 gpl
Advance 45.00 gpl
12
Figure 6 Split Organic 2E+2E+2S; Reduced Flow Within Each Extract Unit

6.40
1.25 gpl (R= 91.69%)
Raffinate
1.25 gpl (R= 91.69%)

3.69 gpl (50%)
Extraction Section
5.31
5.31

6.40
E4
12.86 gpl Loaded (76.7%) 12.86 gpl
12.86 gpl
Stripping Section
5.07

36.50
S2
Spent 35.00 gpl
Advance 45.00 gpl
Figure 7 Split Organic 2E+2E+2S; Same Flow Within Each Extract Unit; Increased in Strip
DESCRIPTION: Split Organic 2E+2E+2S; Same Flow Within Each Extract Unit; Increased in Strip PLS 15.00 gpl MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 3.00 E1
6.91
Raffinate
0.81 gpl (R= 94.62%)
Raffinate
0.81 gpl (R= 94.61%)

6.44 gpl (50%)
Extraction Section
2.21
2.21

6.91
E4
11.18 gpl Loaded (50.3%) 11.17 gpl
11.16 gpl
Stripping Section

13
Figure 8 2E+1S, 2 Trains

5.49
0.91 gpl (R= 93.96%)
Extraction Section
2.73

9.57 gpl Loaded (57.1%) 9.57 gpl
Stripping Section

Evaluating Results The MEUM program can be used to provide answers to many types of questions depending on how you want to compare your options. How will we need to change the reagent concentration to maintain 90% Cu recovery as the PLS Cu grade changes? If we do not adjust the extract O/A ratio to compensate for variation in the PLS grade, how will our percent Cu recovery change? The experience of the Cytec representative working with you for this evaluation can help shape how you attack your evaluation. Some times the evaluation of results is straight forward, but at other times many secondary issues should also be considered. The technical representative can help you assess the secondary performance properties that may be affected by the differ-
ent options you evaluate (i.e., effect on Cu:Fe selectivity when the percent copper loading of your loaded organic begins to drop). Accessing Capabilities The benefits of Cytecs MEUM program can be accessed in many ways. Direct collaboration can achieve the most powerful results, with Cytec working with you, trying different ideas. For those with need for more frequent access to the program capabilities, either due to the stage of the project or number of projects worked on in an office, licensing agreements can be developed and training set up to allow direct access to MEUM. As always, MEUM is available for installation at all of our customers facilities.
Cytec encourages open discussions on circuit configurations. Contact Cytec to discuss how Cytecs MEUM program can help you.
14
Control of Critical Operational Variables at the Los Pelambres Molybdenum Plant

Mr. Jorge Cortnez, Leadership Area Metallurgist, Pelambres Molybdenum Plant, Chile Mr. Sergio Arancibia, Plant Superintendent, Pelambres Molybdenum Plant, Chile Mario Palominos, Latin-American Technical Manager MP, Cytec Industries Inc., Santiago, Chile Introduction A management tool called Critical Processes Display (CPD) was developed at Los Pelambres in order to achieve operational control and continuous improvement goals. The system development and goals are described. The influence of identifying and managing seven Critical Operating Variables (COVs) for the recovery of molybdenum is reviewed. Successful development and implementation of the CPD system and managing the COVs has led to an improvement in the operating stability of the molybdenum plant. Operation Background Los Pelambres Mining Company is located 200 km North of Santiago, Figure 2 Molybdenum Plant
Cu -Mo TK 10 Concentrate
TK 13 18 Rougher Cells 3 .
Chile and is owned by Antofagasta Minerals (60%) and a Japanese consortium made up of Nippon Mining, Mitsubishi Materials, Marubeni, Mitsubishi and Mitsui (40%). Copper and molybdenum concentrates are produced from the porphyry ore body with annual production of 319 kton of copper and 11 kton of molybdenum. The plant processes 135,000 tons per day, with average head grades of 0.8% Cu and 0.03% Mo. The primary copper species are chalcopyrite, chalcocite and bornite. The mineral is extracted from an open pit mine and then carried by conveyors to the concentrating plant. A collective concentrate is obtained and which is later carried to the molybdenum plant.
Figure 1 Location
The molybdenum plant produces two products: a copper concentrate, which is carried through a 120 km ore duct to the shipping port (Puerto Chungo), and a molybdenum concentrate which is
Agitair, 300 ft
Cu TK 12
Concentrate
TK 13
18
Cells
st
Cleaning 3 .
Agitair, 300 ft
TK
55
TK
10 2W1 -2 Cells 3 . Wemco, 300 ft
75` THICKENER
Vertimill 150 HP 2 TK 10
TK
56
50 THICKENER
TO LEACHING FILTRATION PLANT
15
later treated at the leaching plant in order to reduce its content of copper and obtain a molybdenum concentrate of 56%. The molybdenum plant processes the copper-molybdenum collective concentrate coming from the concentrating plant, which has already been prepared with sodium sulphydrate in a nitrogen atmosphere at an approximate pH of 7. Its flowsheet can be observed in Figure 2. The green area corresponds to the rougher flotation, a sub-process selected to develop the study described below. Cytecs CYQUEST 740 sulfidizing agent is used in the operation. Critical Process Display at the Molybdenum Plant Process control is a key management process at Los Pelambres. The stabilization of the operating processes considers monitoring and controlling a number of variables, including: 1) human dependability (commitment, empowerment, communication); 2) development of work teams; 3) process dependability (operation within standards, underAnalysis of Selective Recovery ICG of the Rougher Flotation sub-process In this sub-process, highlighted in green in Figure 2, the collective concentrate coming from TK-10 is stored in tanks. Sulfuric acid is added to condition the pulp. The pulp is fed to a dilution tank to adjust the pulp to the optimum % of solids for floatation. The pulp is then taken to a conditioning Table 1 Critical Operating Variables
standing of processes and procedures); and 4) equipment dependability (use strategies and maintenance effectiveness). The key performance targets for the molybdenum plant are: 1. To keep a consistent minimum inventory of dry metric tons of collective concentrate 2. Molybdenum Recovery > 94.5% 3. NaHS Consumption < 4.5 kilograms per ton collective concentrate 4. Molybdenum in final concentrate > 56%. Critical Processes Display (CPD) consists of 5 steps: 1. Identification of management key indicators 2. Identification of Critical Operational Variables (COVs) 3. Relationship between COs critical operations and the operational ranges of the COVs. 4. Navigation board 5. Operational and maintenance strategies.
tank, where the Cu (NaSH) depressor reagent is added. Then the pulp enters a distribution box feeding the conventional cells for the separation of Mo from the Cu concentrate. Thirty nine (39) operational variables were established for this sub-process, seven (7) of which were defined as critical, and assigned the following defined control limits:
Critical Operating Variables Discharge Solid Percentage Plant Feed TMS Acidulation Tank pH pH inside rougher cells O2 Content in Nitrogen Reduction potential in rougher cells (ORP) Solid percentage in rougher feed
Results
Unit % TMS/h % mV %
Lower Control Limit 60 6 8 -550 40
Upper Control Limit 75 146 7 9 0.8 -480 45
Plant personnel conducted a study during 2005 and part of 2006.The number of times that a determined value was
observed (number of events) was plotted on a graph for each of the operational critical variables. The results are shown below: COV 1: Percentage of solids in TK010 discharge
100 Events Quality 80 60 40 20 0 20 30 40 2005

16
As a result of the low re-circulated and/or fresh water exchange, there was a smaller percentage of solids in the year 2006 than in 2005. The difference is caused by the maintenance of inventories below 2000 dry metric tons.
50
60 2006
70
80
COV 2: Plant Feed

100 Events Quality 80 60 40 20 0 50 100 2005 150 2006 200
This graph shows a higher plant feed rate in 2006, closer to the upper control limit.
COV 3: pH in acidulation tank

140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 5.00 6.00 2005 7.00 8.00 2006 9.00 Events Quality
Data obtained are within the control limits. A more acidic pH has been used in 2006 in order to deactivate residual reagents coming from the concentrating plant.
COV 4: pH inside the rougher cells

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 2005 9.00 10.00 2006
17
Events Quality
A more acidic pH is being used in 2006 in order to neutralize the effect of the calcium ion (lime) coming from the concentration plant with the purpose of improving the recovery of molybdenum in this stage.
11.00
12.00
COV 5: Oxygen content in Nitrogen

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.00 Events Quality
The percentage of O2 in 2006 was higher than in 2005 due to a higher consumption of N2 as a result of a higher treatment of the plant (lower efficiency of the nitrogen plant). This caused a higher consumption of NaHS.
0.50
1.00 2005
1.50
2.00 2006
2.50
3.00
COV 6: Oxygen reduction potential in rougher cells

200 Events Quality 150 100 50 0 -700.0
In 2006 a higher oxygen reduction potential was observed, associated with a lower pH inside the rougher cells. The values obtained are within the control limits.
-600.0
-500.0
-400.0 2005
-300.0
-200.0 2006
-100.0
0.00
COV 7: Percentage of solids in rougher feed: The distribution (not shown) was consistent between years and within control limits.
When comparing and analyzing the COVs affecting the molybdenum recovery ICG, it can be concluded that the majority of the seven variables defined as critical are within the control limits established for the process. There are also some external variables affecting the recovery of the selective plant, such as the granulometry of the collective concentrate. Although granulometry can not be manipulated at the molybdenum plant, it must be controlled and information given to the the concentrating plant. This generates joint strategies between both units.
Conclusions As a result of this study, the staff became more involved in the process. It was possible to unify the operational criteria and to establish periodical meetings for the revision of the strategies. The process of developing the operational targets and monitoring critical operating variables helped foster plant stability which enabled the plant to meet its goals. This paper has been based on a presentation made at the First International Conference of Mineral Processing Plants, Antofagasta, Chile, July 28th, 2006
18
Improving Flotation of Copper Oxide Ores by Application of AERO XD900 and AERO XD902 Promoters
Michael Peart, EMA Technical Manager, Mineral Processing, Cytec Industries BV., Bradford, UK Summary This article offers suggestions for the effective application of AERO XD900 and XD902 promoters for use in copper oxides flotation. The work suggests that the effectiveness of these two products may be enhanced following sulfidization. All of the work has been done on mixed sulfide/oxide ores, however the results could potentially have application in all copper oxide ores where the oxide minerals are discrete, rather than low Cu content minerals such as cupriferous goethite1. It has been demonstrated that use of AERO XD900 promoter on its own can be effective but tends to require very high dosage. In addition to cost considerations, higher dosages of AERO XD900 promoter have the disadvantage that they can create excessive foaming and an over-stable froth (excessive foaming can be minimized with the use of AERO XD903 promoter). Concentrate filtration also tends to be very difficult. However, application of AERO XD900 promoter following CPS (controlled potential sulfidization)2 allows a major reduction in dosage and tends to result in improved recovery and superior concentrate grade. Use of xanthate alongside NaSH and AERO XD900 promoter or AERO XD902 promoter is also beneficial, as well as is proper conditioning timing. Testwork Procedure The bulk of this work involved taking the rougher tails after flotation of sulfides from a mixed sulfide/oxide ore from two customers. Work was conducted on both underground and open pit ores. Plant slurry samples were screened to remove trash and +500 micron material, then split into charges using a rotary splitter. Tests were done using both 2.5l and 4.5l cells on Denver D12 machines. Tests were conducted at natural pH (typically pH 8.0 pH 8.5) after test work at pH 9.0 and pH 9.5 (with NaOH) showed no advantage. Flotation times up to 24 minutes were investigated, but the bulk of the work used an overall flotation time of 12 minutes. Only the test work for Customer 1 was conducted on ore milled in the laboratory. In this case, bulk sulfide/oxide rougher concentrates were produced. Concentrates and tails were filtered, dried, weighed and prepared. Most assays were performed by an international met lab. often determined by difference, TCu ASCu. T Cu is total copper, usually analyzed following dissolution with boiling aqua regia. Results and Discussion Performance of AERO XD902 promoter on its own and with NaSH The first set of tests shown below was run on an underground ore where AS Cu levels are typically greater-than 0.8% AS Cu.
Sulfide Rougher Tails AS Cu Grade vs Recovery
AS Cu recovery (%)
AS Cu Grade (%)
In the final sets of work, tails assays were done in duplicate, sending the second sample under different nomenclature. Further repeats were conducted when these did not match. Notes: AS Cu is acid soluble copper. For most of this work, acid was 5% H2SO4, agitated at room temperature for 20 minutes. AI Cu is acid insoluble copper which generally refers to the sulfides, metallic Cu and low solubility minerals such as chrysocolla. AI Cu can be determined by aqua regia dissolution of the residue from AS Cu dissolution, but is more
In this case, minimal AS Cu was achieved with dosages of AERO XD902 promoter between 48 g/t and 170 g/t. Only by using 320 g/t of AERO XD902 promoter, on its own, did we start to achieve respectable AS Cu grade/recovery. The addition of 30 g/t SiPX alongside low dosages of AERO XD902 promoter did not improve performance. Much better performance was seen when the reagent was used after sulfidization, with and without xanthate. In a second series of tests on this underground ore, higher dosages of AERO XD902 promoter were used.
19
A subsequent set of tests was run on an open pit ore. The objective was to look at NaSH, PAX and AERO XD900 promoter requirements. Results for AS Cu recovery and AS Cu grade have been plotted as AERO XD900 promoter dosage versus NaSH dosage. Note: four tests with same recovery obscure each other.
AS Cu recovery (%)
This time, high AS Cu grade/recovery was only achieved using 550 g/t AERO XD902 promoter, with 350 g/t only achieving 22% AS Cu recovery. The performance of 550 g/t AERO XD902 promoter alone was matched using 370 g/t NaSH + 250 g/t AERO XD902 promoter and by 550 g/t NaSH + 230 g/t AERO XD902 promoter. (There was an outlier, however, with lower-than expected recovery in the repeat of the test using 350 g/t NaSH + 230 g/t AERO XD902 promoter.)
Second Customer Underground Sulfide Tails Flotation AS Cu Grade vs Recovery
AS Cu grade (%)
Second Customer AS Copper Recovery vs AERO XD900 Dosage
Second Customer AS Copper Grade vs AERO XD900 Dosage
AS Cu recovery (%)
AS Cu Grade (%)
AERO XD900 Dosage (g/t)
AERO XD900 Dosage (g/t)
This set of results appeared to be quite a setback as it seemed that use of NaSH + PAX alone could achieve high AS Cu recovery. Use of AERO XD900 promoter managed to yield small increases in recovery but with a major drop in concentrate grade. Looking more closely at the results, however, it was seen that NaSH + PAX appeared to hit a maximum at 50% AS Cu recovery. Increasing NaSH from 700 g/t to 1400 g/t and PAX from 105 g/t to 170 g/t did not improve AS Cu recovery. In the tests without PAX, increasing the dosage of AERO XD900 promoter from 75 g/t to 120 g/t did achieve significantly In all tests 700 g/t NaSH was added and conditioned for four minutes prior to addition of the collector. Duplicate tests were run where 100 g/t PAX was added to the first rougher. High AS Cu grade concentrate was produced at high grade in the first rougher but little additional AS Cu recovery was achieved in the second rougher. Repeating the test (PAX only to first rougher) but adding 70 g/t AERO XD900 promoter (black line) or an additional 200 g/t NaSH + 70 g/t AERO XD900 promoter (pink line) both brought about an additional 15%-20% AS Cu recovery gain to final conc. Use of 70 g/t AERO XD900 promoter (no PAX) gave superior results to the PAX only test but optimum results were seen when both PAX and AERO XD900 promoter were added to the first rougher. Unfortunately no test was run where PAX was added to first and second roughers. Effect of AERO XD900 Promoter Conditioning Time. Since high energy conditioning is necessary for use of AERO XD900 promoter and similar formulations in Kaolin processing, the question arose as to whether additional conditioning
20
higher AS Cu recovery at equivalent concentrate grade at 700 g/t and 1400 g/t NaSH. It was again clearly demonstrated that little AS Cu recovery could be achieved with low dosages of AERO XD900 promoter alone. Performance of AERO XD900 promoter with NaSH and PAX. As the previous tests had demonstrated the value in having NaSH and PAX present with AERO XD902, the following set of tests was run on the second customers open pit ore to determine if AERO XD900 promoter added any value when used in conjunction with these products.
Second Customer Flotation of Sulfide AS Cu Grade vs Recovery
AS Cu Recovery (%)
AS Cu Grade
time might improve its effectiveness for oxide copper flotation. Tests were run on second customers open pit ore using 70 g/t AERO XD900 promoter at three conditioning times: one minute, four minutes and 12 minutes in 1) tests with only 700 g/t NaSH added, 2) tests with 700 g/t NaSH then 100 g/t PAX.
Use of PAX alongside this relatively low dosage of AERO XD900 promoter proved beneficial. Conditioning for 12 minutes was deleterious to performance, with superior performance being achieved at one minute and four minutes conditioning.
AS Cu recovery (%)
Second Customer Flotation of Sulfide Tails AS Cu Grade vs Recovery
What Did Not Prove So Effective Emulsification: It was thought that because the AERO XD900 promoter and AERO XD902 promoter molecules were relatively water insoluble, use of an emulsifier might aid its distribution through the pulp (Cytecs Reagent S-9947). Test results showed no metallurgical advantage to adding an emulsifier. It would appear that the AERO XD902 promoter disperses adequately on its own. Use of CYQUEST 3223 dispersant: It was thought that use of CYQUEST 3223 dispersant might aid the use of AERO XD900 promoter by blocking adsorption on to surface of slimes and dispersing slimes from the surface of the oxide copper. Two sets of test work were run using CYQUEST 3223 dispersant and in neither set was any advantage seen. This may have been because a dispersant was not necessary on this ore, or it may have been due to CYQUEST 3223 depressing the AS Cu to some degree as a result of the high dosage. Ammonium sulfate: In a paper by David Bastin of Liege University, Belgium (Ref 4) it was shown that use of ammonium sulfate significantly boosted AS Cu recovery in CPS with xanthate. This method was mentioned in a much older paper (Ref 5), which describes use of ammonium sulfate as a means of controlling the harmful effect of overdose of sulfidizer. Testwork was run at relatively low sulphidiser dosages of 500 g/t to 1000 g/t and comparative tests performed with and without 800 g/t ammonium sulphate. Results showed a reduction in performance when the ammonium sulphate was present . The reason no advantage was seen in the use of ammonium sulphate was probably because the levels of NaSH used were well below the threshold level where ammonium salts start to show an advantage by control of excess hydrosulfide. Recommendations AERO XD900 and AERO XD902 promoters can aid recovery when used with xanthate (PAX or NaBX), following sulfidization. Adequate conditioning after NaSH addition is necessary to avoid excessive frothing. Very slimy ores can make use of AERO XD900 and XD902 promoters difficult, due to generation of an over-stable froth. Look at either de-sliming or use of polyphosphate type dispersants. Experiment with conditioning time of AERO XD900 and XD902 promoters, but 1-3 minutes is a good starting point. To maintain Cu recovery through cleaning, it is necessary to maintain the cleaning stages at similar potentials to the roughing stage. For a mixed copper sulfide/oxide ore, it may be valuable (when feasible) to clean the sulfide and oxide concentrates separately, as kinetics of oxide flotation are likely to be slower. As AERO XD900 and XD902 promoters tend to solidify at lower temperatures (<17C), try to do test work at the temperature of the plant pulp.
AS Cu Grade
References 1. Lee J.S, Nagaraj D.R. and Coe J.E., 1998, Practical Aspects of Oxide Copper Recovery with Alkyl Hydroxamates, Minerals Engineering vol 11 no 10 p929 939. 2. Nagaraj D.R. and Gorken A., 1991, Potential controlled flotation and depression of copper sulfides and oxides using hydrosulfide in non-xanthate systems, Canadian Metall. Quarterly Vol 30 No 2 pp 79 86. 3. Kasanda J.K., Mpashi P. and Mumba C., 1998, Laboratory Optimisation of the Underground Copper Ore Flotation Recovery at Second customer Concentrator, 100th AGM of the CIM, Montreal. 4. Bastin D., Frenay J. and Philippart P., 2003, Ammonium Sulfate as Promoting Agent of the Sulfidization Process of Cu-Co Oxide Ores From The Luiswishi Deposit (DRC), Handout from Poster session at XXII IMPC Cape Town 2003. 5. Zhang W. and Poling G.W., 1987, Ammonium Sulfate as Activator in Sulfidized Xanthate Flotation of malachite, unknown. References of Interest to Enthusiastic Oxide Floaters Hallimond tube only: Salmon-Vega S., Herrera-Urbina R., Sanchez-Corrales V.M., Robles-Vega A., 2003, Floatability of oxidised copper, oxidised chalcocite and copper slag using octyl hydroxamate as a collector, 2003, Cobre 2003 Volume III. On use of ammonium sulfide: Kongolo K., Kipoka M., Minanga K. and Mpoyo M., 2003, Improving the efficiency of oxide copper-cobalt ores flotation by combination of sulfidisers, Minerals Engineering 16, pp 1023 1026. Potential use of aldoximes for oxide copper flotation: Das K.K., Pradip and Suresh B., 1995, Role of Molecular Architecture and Chain Length in the Flotation-Separation of Oxidised Copper-Lead-Zinc Minerals Using Salicylaldoxime derivatives, XIX IMPC. An early paper on use of sulfidization, xanthate + AERO XD900 promoter and AERO XD902 promoter: Evrard L. and De Cuyper J., 1975, Flotation of copper-cobalt oxide ores with alkyl hydroxamates, Proc 11th IMPC Cagliari. Suggested use of imidazolines for malachite flotation: Ackerman P.K., Harris G.H., Klimpel R.R. and Aplan F.F., 1999, Use of Chelating Agents as Collectors in the Flotation of Copper Sulfides and Pyrite, Minerals and Metallurgical processing Vol 16, No 1.
21
New Customized Collector Blend Shows Improved Cu Recovery

Michael Peart, EMA Technical Manager, Mineral Processing, Cytec Industries BV., Bradford, UK Summary Using its proprietary FLOTATION MATRIX 100 process for mineral flotation, Cytec has developed a number of new reagents that are delivering measurable improvements over existing technology. Two such novel collector formulations, AERO XD905 promoter and AERO XD904 promoter, have shown considerable promise in rejecting Acid Soluble (AS) Cu and recovering Acid Insoluble (AI) Cu at one of Cytecs concentrator customers. These two products have been tested on underground ore and open pit ore circuits. AERO XD905 promoter is the optimum product for use on the underground ore circuit as it shows a significant reduction in AS Cu recovery while maintaining AI Cu recovery. On the open pit ore circuit, AERO XD904 promoter is recommended since it demonstrated a potential 23% improvement in AI Cu recovery. AERO XD905 and AERO XD904 are specialty collector blends containing newly commercialized AERO XD5002 collector as a base. Proper formulation blending based on this collector has created products that can significantly reduce reagent consumption while improving performance related to selectivity, recovery, and/or grade for target ore bodies. One example of the benefits that can be achieved from the new collector in a properly formulated product is highlighted below. Test Work Procedure Laboratory flotation tests were performed on samples of underground ore and open pit ore slurries that were sampled from the conditioning agitators prior to reagent addition. Tests were run using the Denver Laboratory Flotation Machine in a 4.5 liter cell. In some tests single rougher concentrates were taken over six minutes, while in others concentrates were taken over two and six minutes cumulative. Results and Discussion Although many tests were conducted, only results of the more relevant tests will be mentioned.
Underground Ore
Figure 1 Roughers AS Cu Grade Recovery
Cum Recovery (% AS Cu) Roughers AS Cu Grade Recovery 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 1 2 Cum AS Cu Grade (%) 3 4
STD = 120 g/t SiPX AERO XD905 8 g/t AERO XD905 14 g/t AERO XD905 22 g/t AERO XD905/SiPX 8/30 g/t AERO XD905/SiPX 14/30 g/t AERO XD905/SiPX 22/30 g/t
Figure 2 Roughers AI Cu Grade Recovery

Cum AL Cu Recovery (%)
Roughers AI Cu Grade Recovery 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

STD = 120 g/t SiPX AERO XD905 8 g/t AERO XD905 14 g/t AERO XD905 22 g/t AERO XD905/SiPX 8/30 g/t AERO XD905/SiPX 14/30 g/t AERO XD905/SiPX 22/30 g/t
22
Cum Grade (% AL Cu )
In the first day of test work on underground ore, AERO XD905 promoter was tested at 8 g/t, 14 g/t and 22 g/t both alone and with 30 g/t SiPX. Comparison was made to the standard of 120 g/t SiPX. Three standard tests were run and the data in the graph shown above is for the average of those three standard tests. Results were extremely encouraging, with the 22 g/t AERO XD905 promoter giving almost equivalent AI grade/recovery to the standard while recovering much less AS Cu (9.9% Table 1 Day 1 Results, Underground Ore
versus 13.6%). Although the tests using AERO XD905 promoter with xanthate only recovered equivalent AI Cu to the standard, they did so at much lower dosage (14 g/t + 30 g/t replacing 120 g/t SiPX). In the second day of test work on underground ore, a single test with AERO XD905 promoter at 25 g/t was compared to three standard tests at 120 g/t SiPX. Note: head grade was extremely low on this day at only 1.1% AI Cu, resulting in low grade concentrates. Only a single concentrate was taken so results have not been plotted.
In this test the AERO XD905 promoter achieved higher AI Cu grade/recovery than the combined standards (86.9%/13.7% vs 85.3%/12.77) although the reduction in AS Cu grade/recovery was not as large as had been seen earlier (14.7%/1.95% versus 15.9/2.10%). Overall AERO XD905 promoter appears to be very effective for flotation of the underground ore. It appears to show selectivity against AI Cu while maintaining AI Cu grade/recovery.
Collector
Dosage (g/t)
120
C1 Cum wt %
3.7
C2 Cum wt %
5.8
C1 Cum % AICu
30.4
C2 Cum % AICu
24.2
C1 Cum AICu rec %

69.7
C2 Cum AICu rec %

85.6
C1 Cum % ASCu
3.3
C2 Cum % ASCu
2.9
C1 Cum ASCu rec %

10.1
C2 Cum ASCu rec %

13.6
SiPX
AERO XD905
1.6
3.7
31.9
21.3
32.5
49.5
2.0
1.94
2.5
5.4
AERO XD905
14
2.5
5.0
34.6
23.4
54.3
74.3
2.1
2.1
4.1
8.4
AERO XD905
22
3.0
5.4
34.8
24.8
64.7
84.3
2.4
2.3
5.8
9.9
AERO XD905/ SiPX AERO XD905/ SiPX AERO XD905/ SiPX
8+30
4.0
6.0
27.2
22.2
69.3
85.1
3.2
2.8
10.4
13.6
14+30
4.3
6.6
25.7
20.5
69.0
85.8
3.1
2.7
10.7
14.6
22+30
4.8
7.1
24.7
20.3
72.5
88.2
3.1
2.7
11.8
15.4
Table 2 Day 2 Results, Underground Ore
Open Pit Ore

Seventeen different collectors were compared to the standard on open pit ore with optimum results being achieved with AERO XD904 promoter. AERO XD904 promoter at 35 g/t was compared to the standard of 80 g/t SiPX. AERO XD904 promoter was tested in duplicate and the standard in triplicate. Since only a single concentrate was taken, results have not been plotted. AERO XD904 promoter gives a significant improvement in AI Cu recovery (82.2% vs 79.1%) although at a lower
23
Collector
Dosage (g/t)
120
Conc wt %
7.0
Conc % AICu
12.8
Conc AICu rec %

84.9
Conc % ASCu
2.10
Conc ASCu rec %

16.1
SiPX
AERO XD905
25
7.1
13.7
86.9
1.95
14.7
concentrate grade (25.2% vs 29.9%). Concentrate AS Cu grade was lower with AERO XD904 promoter than the standard (1.2% vs 1.4%), although recovery was slightly higher due to the higher mass pulled (9.4% vs 8.8%). Table 3 Open Pit Ore Results
Next Steps After the blend is developed and results confirmed in controlled laboratory testing, the next step is verification of performance in commercial trials. For this example, a short plant test was recommended using AERO XD905 promoter on the underground ore circuit to determine likely reduction in AS Cu flotation. A longer trial of AERO XD904 promoter would be Conc necessary on the open pit ore circuit to determine ASCu improvements in AI Cu recovery. Actual trial rec % lengths/protocols can be determined only after an analysis of current plant data using REFDIST (Cytecs proprietary software for preparation of 8.8 relevant plant trials and data evaluation).
Collector
Dosage (g/t) 80 35
Conc wt % 2.6 3.2
Conc % AICu 29.9 25.2
Conc AICu rec % 79.1 82.2
Conc % ASCu 1.38 1.20
SiPX AERO XD904
9.4
More details on the statistical approaches used to develop the custom blend and evaluate test results are available from your Cytec Mining Chemicals representative.
Seminar in China on ACORGA Extraction Reagents

Damien Shiels, Asia-Pacific Regional Sales Manager, Cytec Australia., Melbourne, Australia China is becoming an increasingly important market for copper solvent extraction with steady demand for copper solvent extraction reagents from many new and existing operations. Recently Chinese companies and engineering design houses (notably Jinchuan, among others) have become very active globally, with a particular emphasis in Africa and the Asia Pacific, to support Chinas rapid growth and need for raw materials. In an effort to enhance the exchange of solvent extraction process information in the region, Cytec first sponsored a seminar in China with Beijing Hydrometallurgy in 2001. The third seminar was held in Beijing, China, October 31 November 2, 2006. Approximately 60 delegates representing mainly customers, engineering houses, universities and industry associations were in attendance. The seminar provided the opportunity for Cytec further enhance its presence in the region. Christopher Ferguson, Global Sales Director, provided an introduction to the Cytec MEP organization. Damien Shiels, Regional Manager Asia Pacific, presented Cytecs new range of modified aldoxime ketoxime ACORGA copper extractants. Keith Cramer, Global Marketing Manager MEP, presented an update on the global copper SX market and the use of auxiliary equipment in the Cu SX process. Pete Tetlow, International technical Specialist, led the workshop in the use of the MEUM program. A practical demonstration on the use and benefits of Cytecs MEUM SX process modeling software was presented to support the use of ACORGA extraction reagents at customer operations. Cytec personnel reviewed case studies based on real plant data submitted from customers at the seminar. These case studies provided a powerful demonstration of the capabilities of the MEUM program in the process of flow sheet development and design or in improving the performance of existing ACORGA copper solvent extraction operations. Professor Yang of Beijing Hydromet also presented papers that covered the topics of heap leach and concentrate leach, rounding off a comprehensive program that was appreciated by the delegates. Professor Zhu Tun of the Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences facilitated many active discussions at the seminar. The seminar in Beijing culminated with a day trip to the Great Wall of China that provided a good opportunity to thank the delegates for their valuable time in attending the seminar. We look forward to the next Cytec and Beijing Hydrometallurgy seminar in 2008.
24
Cytec Makes Responsible Care a Corporate-Wide Priority

What is Responsible Care? Responsible Care is a global chemical industry performance initiative that is implemented in the United States through the American Chemistry Council. It is a set of guiding principles intended to improve industry performance in safety, occupational health, protection of the environment, product stewardship and security. The guiding principles of the Responsible Care initiative are applied to R&D and manufacturing operations, product transportation and distribution, as well as to the use and ultimate disposal of our products (and related wastes) by our customers. To improve performance, companies use an integrated Responsible Care and ISO environmental management system called RC14001. This system helps us quantify the extent to which we are operating in accordance with our Safety, Health & Environmental policy. Cytec has committed to implementing the RC14001 management system globally over the next two years. We are doing this to demonstrate our commitment to protecting the health and safety or our employees, the people we do business with and the communities in which we operate. Why Do We Take Responsible Care Seriously? Responsible Care is more than a set of principles and declarations. It involves implementing world-class management systems that have been verified through independent auditors; tracking performance through established environmental, health, safety and security measures; and extending these best practices to our business partners through the industry supply chain. A Responsible Care management system supports Cytecs company values, specifically those making safety our first priority and protecting the health and well-being of the communities in which we operate. Moreover, Responsible Care can help us improve our operating performance by requiring us to implement systems and procedures to better manage our safety, health and environmental performance. We expect that implementing Responsible Care management systems will improve our performance in the following ways: Working toward zero injuries, zero harmful releases and zero serious process incidents Reducing our overall environmental footprint (reducing energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and waste) Developing sustainable products and technologies that generate sustainable business advantage for Cytec Ensuring compliance with all regulations Responsible Care in Mining Projects with customers: 1. Working with mining customers on managing transportation risk 2. Working with customers to ensure that our employees are trained and follow Mine Safety and Health Association (MSHA) requirements. 3. Customizing products to increase extraction rates from low grade ore bodies, thereby reducing environmental impact 4. Helped a customer based in Chile to reduce sulfate discharge in wastewater 5. Cytecs plant in Antofagasta, Chile was recently recertified for ISO-14001 and OSHAS 18000 6. A recent plant expansion at Mount Pleasant, Tennessee (where Cytecs solvent extraction products are manufactured) enabled 75 percent reduction in air emissions, while increasing overall production capacity 7. Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee was certified for RC14001 in late 2006; certification at Atequiza, Mexico is expected in early 2007
Annual Responsible Care Metrics Recordable injury frequency (number of recordable injuries per 100 employees) Responsible Care process incidents Total accidental releases > 1 lb. Permit excursions (number of times we exceed permit limit) Long-Term Responsible Care Metrics Recordable injury frequency Global hazardous air pollutant releases Energy (BTUs), energy efficiency (BTUs/lb.) Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 and other equivalents) Waste (hazardous waste)
Goals < 1.0 0 10% Improvement 10% Improvement Goals < .5 by 2010 20% improvement from 2002 baseline by 2007 Set long-term goal for 2012 by end of 2006 Set global 2012 GHG reduction target for Cytec by end of 2006 Set global 2012 targets by end of 2006
25
Cytec Chile Mining Seminar for Solvent Extraction and Mineral Processing
Juan Manuel Rodriguez, Regional Sales Director, Mineral Processing, Cytec Industries Inc., Santiago, Chile Osvaldo Castro, Regional Sales Manager, Metal Extraction Productions, Cytec Industries Inc., Santiago, Chile Cytec held its annual seminar for customers of metal extraction and mineral processing regeants in Iquique, Chile in October 2006. It was the ninth event with sessions on ACORGA extraction reagents, and third event with sessions on mineral processing reagents. The seminar, attended by 120 people, included customers from leading mining companies throughout the region as well as representatives of universities, research institutes, engineering companies, and consultants. We had two simultaneous sessions, one on technical flotation and the other on solvent extraction, said J.M. Rodriguez, Mineral Processing Regional Sales Director for Latin America. These topics were well received, and we were pleased that this event continues to be so successful. Cytec introduced a new series of solvent extraction reagents to the Latin American market. The MAK series of ACORGA extractants is being promoted to maximize efficiencies in solvent extraction plants. These reagents, which are modified aldoxime:ketoxime blends, can improve copper recovery significantly and are effective over a wide range of conditions as compared to unmodified aldoxime:ketoxime blends. After the presentation on the Flotation Matrix 100 process, customers also shared cases describing the benefits from this process, J.M. said. We had excellent participation by our customers, and it was a great opportunity to see them outside of their regular responsibilities, said J.M. He concluded by saying that the 2007 seminar is already planned for October 18 and 19, and it will be an opportune time to be with many Latin American customers representing both the Solvent Extraction and Mineral Processing areas.
26
Organizational News
Cytec reinforces our commitment to the mining industry by expanding our global team. Our most recent group of new employees bring a depth of industry experience and technical knowledge to our organization. ALAN FISCHER
Alan Fischer joined Cytec as Account Manager Eastern Australia and Papua New Guinea, Mineral Processing Chemicals. Alan joins Cytec from Buckman Laboratories where he was employed as Area Manager for New South Wales. His main responsibilities included new business development in the Sydney paper industry, managing paper division sales growth in New Zealand and acting as Product Manager for a new biocide in Australia and New Zealand.
DAVID HOLT
David Holt joined Cytec as Account Manager Asia, Mineral Processing Chemicals. David joins Cytec from Mobil Oil where he worked as Site Manager at PT Freeport, Indonesia. His main responsibility was to manage the fuel and lubricants contract between Freeport and Mobil.
JOANNE BLAIR
Joanne Blair joined Cytec as Account Manager Western Australia, Mineral Processing Chemicals. Joanne joins Cytec from Southern Cross Operations (St Barbara Ltd) where she held the position of Senior Metallurgist. Her main responsibilities included daily and monthly metallurgical accounting, working with supervisors and operators to ensure efficient operation of the plant, and mentoring graduate metallurgists.
SEAN ARMSTRONG
Sean Armstrong, based out of Reno Nevada, recently joined Cytec as a Sales Representative for the Minerals Processing group in Western United States. Sean has worked in the mining industry for 27 years. He has experience in North America, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, India, Kazakhstan, Nicaragua, Russia and Chile. Most recently, Sean managed the metallurgical laboratory at Newmont Mining Co. in Carlin, Nevada, just prior to starting with Cytec.
DOMINIC NORMAN
Dominic Norman joined Cytec as a Sales Representative with Cytecs mineral processing group working in the Western United States and Canada. Dominic earned a BSc. in Environmental Geology at Royal Holloway University of London before getting his MSc. in Integrated Environmental Studies with Engineering from the University of Southampton. He then left England and moved to the west coast of the US to work as a geologist in the geoscience industry.
DREW LEWING
Drew Lewing joined the Mineral Processing Group in 2006 as the Global Sales Director based at Cytecs headquarters in West Paterson, NJ. Drew has been with Cytec for 18 years in a variety of Sales and Marketing roles serving the Paper, Textile, Pharma, Petrochemical, Electronic Chemical and general chemical industries. Drew has a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Bucknell University in the States and an MBA in International Marketing from NIMBAS in the Netherlands. Most of Drews commercial experience has been global in nature including assignments outside the US in France and Canada.
27
Upcoming Industry Events

Trade Shows May 8-9, 2007 Cobalt Conference Shanghai, China May 16-18, 2007 HydroCopper Vina del Mar, Chile May 21-26, 2007 ALTA 2007 Nickel-Cobalt, Copper & Uranium Conference Perth, Australia August 25-27, 2007 Copper 2007 Toronto, Cananda September 13-14, 2007 Hatch Conference on Hydrometallurgy Amanzingwe, South Africa Customer Seminars October 18-19, 2007 Tenth ACORGA Extractant Users Seminar, Third Mineral Processing Seminar, Iquique, Chile
Corporate Headquarters Cytec Industries Inc. Five Garret Mountain Plaza West Paterson, NJ 07424 USA Tel: +1 973 357-3193 US Toll Free: +1 800 652-6013 Fax: +1 973 357-3117 North American Regional Office Cytec Industries Inc. 3259 E. Harbour Dr., Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85034 USA Tel: +1 602 470-1446 Fax: +1 602 470-5030 South American Regional Office Avda. Andrs Bello 2687 Torre Pacfico, Piso 23 Las Condes, Santiago, Chile Tel: +56 2-560-7927 Fax: +56 2-560-7902
Europe, Africa and the Middle East Regional Office Cytec Industries BV Abenbury Way Wrexham Industrial Estate Wrexham LL13 9UZ United Kingdom Tel: +44 1274-762215 Fax: +44 1274-762288 Asia Pacific Regional Office Cytec Australia Holdings Pty Ltd. Suite 1, Level 1, Norwest Quay 21 Solent Circuit Baulkham Hills, NSW 2153 AUSTRALIA Tel: +61 2-9846-6200 Fax: +61 2-9659-9776
Cytec Solutions will be published approximately twice per year for the international mining industry. Editorial content will include: industry news; information on progress particularly in hydrometallurgy and mineral processsing; relevant scientific articles; and news on the Mining Chemicals business of Cytec Industries Inc. Editor: Design/Layout: Keith Cramer Creative Marketing Group, Inc.
Please direct any questions, comments, or requests for corrections or changes to the distribution list to Keith Cramer: Phone (U.S.) +1 973-357-3276 email: Keith.Cramer@Cytec.com
2007 Cytec Industries Inc. All Rights Reserved. Printed in U.S.A. IMPORTANT NOTICE The information and statements herein are believed to be reliable, but are not to be construed as a warranty or representation for which we assume legal responsibility or as an assumption of a duty on our part. Users should undertake sufficient verification and testing to determine the suitability for their own particular purpose of any information, products or vendors referred to herein. NO WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IS MADE. Nothing herein is to be taken as permission, inducement or recommendation to practice any patented invention without a license.
Trademark Notice The indicates a Registered Trademark in the United States and the or * indicates a Trademark in the United States. The mark may also be registered, the subject of an application for registration or a trademark in other countries.
MCT-1137

News LTR 13

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

News LTR 13

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

For Hydrometallurgy and Mineral Processing

Volume 13 May 2007

The Milpillas Project

Circuit Configuration and Extractant Formulation Considerations

MEUM Cytecs SX Design Tool

Critical Operational Variables at Los Pelambres

Improving Flotation of Copper Oxide Ores with AERO Promoters

New Customized Collector Blends for Improved Cu Recovery

China Seminar on ACORGA Extraction Reagents

Responsible Care a Cytec Priority

Chile Seminar on Solvent Extraction and Mineral Processing

Upcoming Industry Events

The Milpillas Project

SPIROK, VSF and DOP are trademarks of Outotec Oyj.

Figure 1: Milpillas project Configuration 2E+2S

0.56 gpl (R= 90.06%)

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.10 E1

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.10

6.49 gpl Loaded (87.0%) 6.49 gpl

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 3.20 S1

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 3.20

Advance 49.67 gpl

Figure 2: McCabe Thiele Diagram

Copper in Organic phase

2.00 4.00 6.00 Copper in Organic phase

Considerations for Circuit Configuration and Extractant Formulation Selection

2+2 verses a 3+1 circuit configuration

Figure 1: 2E+2E Configuration

0.25 gpl (R= 94.92%)

7.13 gpl Loaded (85.6%) 7.13 gpl

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 2.11 S1

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 2.11

Advance 45.01 gpl

Figure 2: 3E+1S Configuration

0.25 gpl (R= 95.06%)

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00

7.95gpl Loaded (95.4%) 7.95 gpl

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 2.11 S1

Standard Series Parallel Configuration vs. Interlaced series parallel

TABLE 1 Expected copper recoveries

Figure 3: Conventional Series-parallel Configuration

0.20 gpl (R= 93.38%)

0.26 gpl (R= 91.39%)

PLS 3.00 gpl MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00 E2

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00 E3

8.58 gpl Loaded (86.4%) 8.58 gpl

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00 S1

Figure 4: Interlaced Series-parallel Configuration

Cu in Aqueous phase ACORGA M5640 ACORGA M5910

4.00 6.00 Cu in Aqueous phase

Figure 1 Simple 2E+1S Circuit

0.33 gpl (R= 93.38%)

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.00 E2

7.35 gpl Loaded (88.3%) 7.35 gpl

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 2.50 S1

Figure 2 Complex Circuit Incorporation Many Possible Design Features

0.12 gpl (R= 92.37%)

0.13 gpl (R= 93.31%)

PLS 3.00 gpl (0.20F) MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 1.39 E2

PLS 2.00 gpl MixerSettler

0.81 1.18 6.51

MixerSettler SE = 95% OA = 2.50 S1