Advertisement

Processing of Hematitic Iron Ores

  • John Hanna
  • Ibezim J. Anazia

Abstract

The beneficiation characteristics of low grade Birmingham red iron ores of the Big Seam and Ferruginous Sandstone seams were investigated using flotation and magnetic separation after reduction roasting. Samples of Big Seam ore responded more readily to concentration than the Ferruginous Sandstone ores. The impurities inherent with the iron oxide minerals limited the grade of concentrates recoverable from these ores to a maximum of about 61% Fe if reasonable iron recoveries are sought.

Flotation concentrates assaying 60–61% Fe and about 0.1% P with attendant iron recoveries of about 63% were achieved from Big Seam ore charges while those obtained from the low phosphorus Ferruginous Sandstone samples analyzed 54–56% Fe. Reductive roasting and magnetic separation of ground charges of the two ore samples yielded concentrates assaying 60–61% Fe. Iron recoveries were better than those achieved by flotation, but the magnetic products of Big Seam ore were high in phosphorus (0.2–0.3% P).

Keywords

Magnetic Separation Gangue Mineral Iron Oxide Mineral Iron Recovery Magnetic Concentrate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    W.B. Phillips, Trans. AIME, 25, (1895), 23 pp.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.R. Thoenen, (1953) pp. 64–71.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    T.A. Simpson, et al., Assessment of Iron Ore Availability in Alabama and the Southeastern Appalachian Region, Final Report, NSF Grant AER 77–16114, (University of Alabama), (1978) pp. 102.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.W. Willar and G.A. Dawe, Min. Cong. J., (1975) pp. 40–48.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    H.S. Hanna and C. Rampacek, Mining Eng. (April 1982), pp. 395–403.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.R.B. Cooke, U.S. BuMines Bull. 2391, (1936), pp. 104–109.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.D. Hagni and M. Cooper, U.S. BuMines, open files, 1982.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.B. Clemmer, et al., U.S. BuMines R.I. 3799, (1945), 42 pp.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.S. Perry, et al., U.S. BuMines R.I., 6123, (1962), pp. 13.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R.S. Dean and C.W. David, U.S. BuMines Bull. 425, (1941), pp. 144–145.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H.S. Hanna and I.J. Anazia, 55th Colloid and Surface Science Symposium, Cleveland, Ohio, (1981).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    H.S. Hanna and I.J. Anazia, MRI Technical Report Series T•.R. #9, (University of Alabama), (1982), pp. 126.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O. Lee, B.W. Gandrud, and F.D. Devaney, U.S. BuMines Bull. 278, (1927) pp. 75.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W.H. Coghill and G.D. Coe, 1946, U.S. BuMines Bull. 464, (1946).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    E.G. Davis and I.L. Feld, U.S. BuMines R.I. 7627, (1972), pp. 10Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    V. Hencl and J. Svoboda, 1981, Proceedings 13th Int’l Mineral Processing Congress, Warsaw, June 1979, (et al., Elsevier, N.Y., 1981 ), pp. 472–488.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W.E. Lamont, et al., U.S. BuMines R.I. 7728, (1973), pp. 15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Hanna
    • 1
  • Ibezim J. Anazia
    • 1
  1. 1.Mineral Resources InstituteThe University of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations