Advertisement

Minerals & Metallurgical Processing

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 183–188 | Cite as

The ultimate mineral processing challenge: Recovery of rare earths, phosphorus and uranium from Florida phosphatic clay

  • P. Zhang
  • H. Liang
  • Z. Jin
  • D. DePaoli
Special Issue on Rare Earths

Abstract

Phosphate beneficiation in Florida generates more than one tonne of phosphatic clay, or slime, per tonne of phosphate rock produced. Since the start of the practice of large-scale washing and desliming for phosphate beneficiation, more than 2 Gt of slime has accumulated, containing approximately 600 Mt of phosphate rock, 600 kt of rare earth elements (REEs) and 80 million kilograms of uranium. The recovery of these valuable elements from the phosphatic clay is one of the most challenging endeavors in mineral processing, because the clay is extremely dilute, with an average solids concentration of 3 percent, and fine in size, with more than 50 percent having particle size smaller than 2 µm, and it contains nearly 50 percent clay minerals as well as large amounts of magnesium, iron and aluminum. With industry support and under funding from the Critical Materials Institute, the Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute in conjunction with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory undertook the task to recover phosphorus, rare earths and uranium from Florida phosphatic clay. This paper presents the results from the preliminary testing of two approaches. The first approach involves three-stage cycloning using cyclones with diameters of 12.4 cm (5 in.), 5.08 cm (2 in.) and 2.54 cm (1 in.), respectively, to remove clay minerals followed by flotation and leaching. The second approach is a two-step leaching process. In the first step, selective leaching was conducted to remove magnesium, thus allowing the production of phosphoric acid suitable for the manufacture of diammonium phosphate (DAP) in the second leaching step. The results showed that multistage cycloning with small cyclones is necessary to remove clay minerals. Selective leaching at about pH 3.2 using sulfuric acid was found to be effective for removing more than 80 percent of magnesium from the feed with minimal loss of phosphorus.

Key words

Phosphate Rare earth elements Uranium Hydrocyclone Leaching 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Al-Thyabat, S., and Zhang, P., 2015, “In-line extraction of REE from Dihydrate (DH) and HemiDidrate wet processes,” Hydrometallurgy, Vol 153, pp. 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altschuler, Z.S., et al., 1967, “Rare Earths in Phosphorites — Geochemistry and Potential Recovery,” USGS Prof. Paper 575-B, U.S. Geological Survey, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, B., and Somasundaran, P., 1993, “Mechanisms determining separation of phosphatic clay waste by selective flocculation,” Miner. Metall. Process., Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 200–205.Google Scholar
  4. Ardaman & Associates Inc., 1982, “Evaluation of Phosphatic Clay Disposal and Reclamation Methods. Volume 1: Index Properties of Phosphatic Clays,” FIPR Publication 02-002-003, Bartow, FL, 68 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Arol, A.I., and Iwasaki, I., 1987, “Control of montmorillonite via complexation and ultrasonics in the selective flocculation of iron ores,” Miner. Metall. Process., Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 200–205.Google Scholar
  6. Davenport, J.E., and Watkins, S.C., 1969, “Beneficiation of Florida pebble phosphate slime. Size distribution of constituent minerals,” Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 533–539,  https://doi.org/10.1021/i260032a016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, B.E., Davis, E.G., and Llewellyn, T.O., 1987, “Recovery of Phosphate from Florida Phosphate Slimes,” Report of Investigation No. 9110, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 13 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, C.A., Jr., 1965, “Microbiological Beneficiation of Phosphate Slime,” M.S. Thesis, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, 400 pp.Google Scholar
  9. Duke, J.B., 1961, “Method for the Froth Flotation of Slimed Minerals and Ores,” U.S. Patent 3,151,062, February, 6 pp.Google Scholar
  10. Gary, J.H., 1963, “Chemical and Physical Beneficiation of Florida Phosphate Slimes,” Report of Investigation No. 6163, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 35 pp.Google Scholar
  11. Greene, E.W., and Duke, J.B., 1962, “Selective flotation of ultrafine minerals or slimes,” Trans. AIME, Vol. 225, pp. 389–395.Google Scholar
  12. Gu, B., and Doner, H.E., 1993, “Dispersion and aggregation of soils as influenced by organic and inorganic polymers,” Soil Science Society of America Journal, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 709–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hari Tulsidas, H., 2012, “Uranium Resources, Demand and Production,” International Atomic Energy Agency Technical Meeting: Uranium Production from Phosphate Rocks, VIC Vienna, April 16–20, 2012.Google Scholar
  14. Hazen, W.C., Hendrickson, A.V., and Hadzeriga, P., 1969, “Recovery of Phosphate Values from Phosphate Slimes,” U.S. Patent 3,425,799, 9 pp.Google Scholar
  15. Jha, M.C., et al., 1985, “Autoclave Acidulation of Phosphate Slimes,” Phase I Report, FIPR Publication No. 83-02-039R, Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research Institute, 110 pp.Google Scholar
  16. Jordan, C.E., et al., 1982, “Recovery of Phosphate from Florida Phosphate Operations Slimes,” Report of Investigation No. 8731, U.S. Bureau of Mines.Google Scholar
  17. Kremer, R.A., and Chokshi, J.C., 1989, “Fate of Rare Earth Elements in Mining/Beneficiation of Florida Phosphate Rock and Conversion to DAP Fertilizer,” Research Report, Mobil Mining and Minerals Co., Nichols, FL, 16 pp.Google Scholar
  18. May, A., and Sweeney, J.W., 1983, “Evaluation of Radium and Toxic Element Leaching Characteristics of Florida Phosphogypsum Stockpiles,” Report of Investigation No. 8776, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 23 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Powell, H.E., and Calhoun, W. A., 1963, “The Hydrocyclone in Clay Beneficiation,” Report of Investigation No. 6275, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 20 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Ribas, R.S., and Nickerson, T. D., 1976, “Process for the Manufacture of Phosphoric Acid with Minimized Environmental Effects,” U.S. Patent 3,932,591, January, 8 pp.Google Scholar
  21. Smit, F.J., 1959, “Reclamation of Phosphate from Florida Washer Slime by Flotation,” M.S. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 210 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Sun, S.C., and Smit, F.J., 1963, “Reclamation of phosphate from Florida washer slime by flotation,” Trans. AIME, Vol 226, pp. 454–461.Google Scholar
  23. Sresty, G.C., 1977, “Beneficiation of Mineral Slimes Using Modified Polymer as Selective Flocculant,” 12th International Mineral Processing Congress, Sao Paulo, Brazil.Google Scholar
  24. Tyler, P.M., and Waggaman, W.H., 1954, “Phosphatic slime—a potential mineral asset,” Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 46, pp. 1049–1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vasan, S., 1971, “Utilization of Phosphate Slimes,” International Minerals and Chemical Corp., Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Water Pollution Control Research Series, W 71-13517, EPA-WQ014050-EPU-08/71, 128 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Zhang, J., et al., 1995, “Recovery of phosphate from Florida beneficiation slimes. I. Re-Identifying the problem,” Minerals Engineering, Vol. 8, No. 4–5, pp. 523–534,  https://doi.org/10.1016/0892-6875(95)00014-h.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Zhang
    • 1
  • H. Liang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Z. Jin
    • 1
  • D. DePaoli
    • 3
  1. 1.Florida Industrial and Phosphate Research InstituteBartowUSA
  2. 2.School of MetallurgyNortheastern UniversityShenyangChina
  3. 3.Oak Ridge National LaboratoryOak RidgeUSA

Personalised recommendations