The Order of Kinetic Models, Rate Constant Distribution, and Maximum Combustible Recovery in Gilsonite Flotation
- 48 Downloads
Kinetic models are the most important tool for predicting and evaluating the performance of flotation circuits. Gilsonite is a natural fossil resource similar to an oil asphalt, high in asphaltenes. Here, in order to determine the kinetic order and flotation rate of a gilsonite sample, flotation experiments were carried out in both rougher and cleaner stages. Experiments were conducted using the combinations of oil–MIBC and gas oil–pine oil, with one test without collector and frother. Five kinetic models were applied to the data obtained from the flotation tests using MATLAB software. Statistical analysis showed that the results of the experiment with oil–MIBC were highly in compliance with all models. Kinetic constants (k) were calculated as 0.1548 (s−1) and 0.0450 (s−1) for rougher and cleaner stages, respectively. Rougher and cleaner tests without collector and frother also matched all models well (R2 > 0.98), with k values of 0.2163 (s−1) and 0.284 (s−1), respectively. The relationship between flotation rate constant, maximum combustible recovery, and particle size showed that the maximum flotation combustible recovery and flotation rate were obtained in the size range of −250 + 106 μm in the rougher and cleaner stages. The combustible recovery and flotation rate were higher in the rougher flotation process than in the cleaner stage.
KeywordsFlotation Kinetic models Gilsonite Bitumen Asphaltum Iran
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author (Ataallah Bahrami) states that there is no conflict of interest.
- 4.Lynch AJ, Johnson NW, Manlapig EV, Thorne CG (1981) Mineral and coal flotation circuits, their simulation and control. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 5.Arbiter N (1951) Flotation rates and flotation efficiency. Trans AIME 190:791–769Google Scholar
- 7.Klimpel RR (1980) Selection of chemical reagents for flotation. In: Mular AL, Bhappu RB (eds) Mineral processing plant design. AIME, New York, pp 907–934Google Scholar
- 8.Imaizumi T, Inoue T (1963) Kinetic considerations of froth flotation. In: 6th international mineral processing congress, Cannes, pp 581–593Google Scholar
- 9.Klassen VI, Mokrousov VA (1963) An introduction to the theory of flotation. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 16.Helms JR, Kong X, Salmon E, Hatcher PG, Schmidt-Rohr K, Mao J (2012) Structural characterization of gilsonite bitumen by advance nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and ultrahigh resolution mass spectrometry revealing pyrrolic and aromatic rings substituted with aliphatic chains. J of organic Geochemistry 44:21–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2011.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Li K, Vasiliu M, Mcalpine CR, Yang Y, Dixon DA, Voorhees KJ, Batzle M, Liberatore MW, Herring AM (2015) Further insights into the structure and chemistry of the gilsonite asphaltene from a combined theoretical and experimental approach. Fuel. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.04.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Kazemi F (2017) Site Selection of gilsonite ore Dressing Plant, Based on Industrial Specification of Mine (Kermanshah). Master of Science Thesis in Mining Engineering, Faculty of Engineering- Urmia University, IranGoogle Scholar
- 19.Tripp BT, White ER (2006) Gilsonite. In: Kogel JE, Trivedi NC, Barker JM, Krukowski ST (eds) Industrial minerals and rocks: commodities, markets, and uses. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Littleton, pp 481–493Google Scholar