Journal Information
Vol. 8. Num. 1.
Pages 1-1592 (January - March 2019)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
530
Vol. 8. Num. 1.
Pages 1-1592 (January - March 2019)
Original Article
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmrt.2018.10.002
Open Access
Flotation studies of fluorite and barite with sodium petroleum sulfonate and sodium hexametaphosphate
Visits
530
Zhijie Chena, Zijie Rena,b,
Corresponding author
renzijie@whut.edu.cn

Corresponding author.
, Huimin Gaoa,b, Renji Zhenga, Yulin Jinc, Chunge Niuc
a School of Resources and Environmental Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China
b Hubei Key Laboratory of Mineral Resources Processing and Environment, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China
c Refining & Petrochemical Research Institute, PetroChina Karamay Petrochemical Co., Ltd., Karamay 834000, China
This item has received
530
Visits

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (10)
Show moreShow less
Tables (2)
Table 1. Main chemical composition of fluorite and barite samples (%).
Table 2. Flotation results of artificial mixed minerals with the reagent scheme of “SPS (0.3gL−1)+SHMP (1.28×10−6molL−1)” at pH 11.
Show moreShow less
Abstract

The development of new collectors to separate fluorite from barite is urgently needed in mineral processing. In this study, the flotation behavior of fluorite and barite was studied using sodium petroleum sulfonate (SPS) as a collector with sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP) as a depressant. The performance of reagents on minerals was interpreted by infrared spectroscopic analysis and zeta potential measurement. The flotation results showed that SPS performed well in a wide pH region (7–11) even at a low temperature (5°C), while the flotability of fluorite and barite were almost the same. At pH 11, the presence of SHMP obviously depressed fluorite rather than barite and SHMP exhibited good selective inhibition to fluorite. Fourier-transform infrared spectra and zeta potential results showed that: (1) SPS can adsorb on fluorite and barite surfaces and (2) SHMP had little effect on the adsorption of SPS on a barite surface, although it interfered with the adsorption of SPS on a fluorite surface through strong adsorption.

Keywords:
Fluorite
Barite
Flotation
Sodium petroleum sulfonate
Sodium hexametaphosphate
Full Text
1Introduction

Fluorite (CaF2), an important non-metallic mineral, is widely employed in chemical manufacturing, metallurgy, and the glass and ceramic industries [1,2]. Consequently, high-grade fluorite is in great demand to meet the rapid development of related industries. However, in most cases, fluorite is tightly associated with gangue, such as barite (BaSO4), calcite (CaCO3), and quartz (SiO2) [1,3]. Thus, these less appealing fluorite resources require advanced beneficiation methods.

The abundant barite–fluorite type ores around the world are hard to treat, and the most efficient way is by froth flotation [3]. Until now, (sodium) oleate has been the most often used collector, and almost all the flotation theories and applications have been developed within an oleate system. Several studies show that oleate has strong collecting ability at relatively high temperatures but is quite sensitive to slimes, low temperature (lower that 15°C) [4,5], and hard-water ions [6]. To solve this problem, many meaningful attempts have improved the performance of these collectors in the flotation of scheelite and apatite [4–7]. Nevertheless, little attention has been given to design innovative flotation collectors for the separation of fluorite from barite.

In this study, the anionic collector sodium petroleum sulfonate (SPS) was used as a collector to float fluorite and barite at a relatively low temperature. SPS normally contains molecules with different weights and polarities [8]. The main functional component of SPS is sulfonate, which has a highly hydrophilic sulfonic group connected with alkyl (RSO3Na) [9]. As reported, SPS has been extensively applied in the flotation of silicate and iron ores [9–11], but seldom have researchers examined the performance of SPS in the flotation of fluorite or barite.

Apart from collectors, depressants are vital to achieve desirable separation results in fluorite ore beneficiation. Depressants can be divided into three categories, namely, metal ions (Al3+, Fe3+, Mg2+, Ca2+, Fe2+), inorganic inhibitors (sodium silicate, sodium sulfide, and sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP)), and macromolecular inhibitors (starch, tannin extract, and polyacrylamide). Among these commonly used inhibitors, SHMP is often used as a depressant, dispersant, stabilizator of mineral suspensions, precipitating agent of some metal ions, and softening agent of hard water. Consequently, SHMP has been used extensively in mineral processing [12] and was therefore selected as an inhibitor in our study to achieve selective recovery of one mineral over another.

In this study, the flotation behavior of both fluorite and barite and their separation were, for the first time, studied in the presence of SPS. SHMP was used as a depressant to achieve the separation of fluorite and barite. The interaction of SPS and SHMP with both minerals was studied by Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) analysis, zeta potential measurement, and contact angle measurement. The purpose of this work was to uncover the underpinning mechanisms responsible for the flotability of fluorite and barite using SPS and SHMP.

2Experimental2.1Materials

High-grade fluorite and barite samples were collected from the Wuling mountain area, China. The purities of fluorite and barite were over 97% based on X- ray diffraction (XRD, Fig. 1) and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectrometer analysis (Table 1). It can be seen that the characteristic peaks of fluorite and barite samples corresponded quite well to the standard patterns of fluorite (JCPDS card No. 35-0816) and barite (JCPDS card No. 24-1035). The samples were ground in a porcelain ball mill and then dry-screened to obtain particles with sizes ranging from −74 to +45μm and used for micro-flotation tests. Samples used for infrared spectrum and zeta potential measurements were achieved by further grinding of the course particles, while samples with −45μm were used for XRD and XRF measurements.

Fig. 1.

XRD patterns of fluorite and barite samples.

(0.21MB).
Table 1.

Main chemical composition of fluorite and barite samples (%).

Mineral  Ca  Ba  Mg  Si  LOI 
Fluorite  0.19  50.78  0.24  0.04  0.22  47.59  0.79 
Mineral  SO3  CaO  BaO  MgO  SiO2  LOI 
Barite  33.63  1.34  64.18  0.13  0.19  0.02  0.30 

LOI, loss-on-ignition.

Analytical grade sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid were prepared as 1% solutions for pH adjustment. The SPS employed in this work was supplied by PetroChina Karamay Petrochemical Co., Ltd. and had a molecular weight of ∼300g/mol, an aromatic compound content of ∼20%, a saturated hydrocarbon content of ∼80%, and a small number of polar compounds. Analytical-grade SHMP was used as a depressant. Deionized water with a resistivity value of 18.25cm was used throughout the experiments and spectroscopic-grade KBr was applied in FTIR spectra measurement.

2.2Micro-flotation test

The micro-flotation tests were conducted with an RK/FGC flotation machine. Two grams of particles was placed in a 40-mL Plexiglas cell, which was then filled with a certain amount of deionized water. The pulp was continuously stirred at 1800rpm for 2min using a pH regulator and 2min with or without the depressant before the collector was introduced and the pulp was then conditioned for 2min. The pH of the slurry was monitored before flotation, followed by flotation for 5min. For single mineral flotation tests, the floated and tailing fractions were collected separately and dried afterwards before being weighed. For artificially mixed minerals flotation, the concentrates and tailings were assayed (Chinese standards GB/T 5195.1-2006) to acquire the grades of fluorite and barite, before calculating the recovery amounts.

All flotation tests, except the temperature-based experiments, were carried out at 15°C. In addition, the temperature of each test refers to the initial water temperature of each conditioning process.

2.3FT-IR spectra

The infrared spectra were recorded by a Nicolet 6700 spectrometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, U.S.) in the 4000–500cm−1 region through KBr disks. Two-gram mineral samples (−2μm) were mixed with a certain amount of deionized water and reagents corresponding to the flotation test. The suspension was then stirred for 10min, settled for 10min, and then the solution was filtered. The treated sample was first dried in a vacuum desiccator at room temperature before a tiny amount of the dried powder was used for FTIR measurement. The IR spectra were obtained at a spectral resolution of 4cm−1.

2.4Zeta potential measurement

The zeta potential was measured by a 90Plus Zeta Particle Size Analyzer (Brookhaven Instruments Corporation, U.S.). The particle size of the ground powder was finer than 2μm for zeta potential measurement tests. The suspensions (0.1% mass fraction) with 1.00×10−3M KCl solution were dispersed in a beaker and magnetically stirred for 10min with and without flotation reagents at various pH values. After 5min, the supernatant was obtained for zeta potential measurements.

3Results and discussion3.1Flotation of fluorite and barite with SPS

The effect of pH value on the flotability of fluorite and barite is illustrated in Fig. 2. The results stated that the recoveries of both fluorite and barite increased drastically when pH was increased from 2 to 7, while there still being relatively high levels in recoveries (over 80%) of two minerals in the pH range 7–11. As indicated, recoveries of both minerals slightly increased when the pH value was beyond 7; therefore, the pH value of 7 was chosen to perform the conditional experiments. Obviously, barite showed higher recovery than fluorite in a strong acidic environment (pH 2). The maximum recoveries of fluorite and barite were 81.89% and 83.24% reached at pH 11, respectively. As observed, fluorite showed a quite similar flotation response to barite in the pH range 3–11.

Fig. 2.

Effect of pH value on recovery of fluorite and barite using SPS (CSPS=0.28g/L).

(0.09MB).

The flotation response of fluorite and barite as a function of SPS dosage is shown in Fig. 3. An increase in the SPS concentration had a positive influence on the recoveries of both fluorite and barite when the pH was fixed at 7. The recoveries of both fluorite and barite increased rapidly when the SPS concentration was increased from 0.1 to 0.3g/L. With a further increase in the SPS dosage, the recoveries of both fluorite and barite almost remained stable. As a result, a SPS dosage of 0.3g/L–0mg/L was preferred in the flotation tests.

Fig. 3.

Effect of SPS dosage on recovery of fluorite and barite (pH 7).

(0.09MB).

To investigate the effect of water temperature on the performance of SPS, a series of flotation tests were conducted from 5 to 25°C with the pH value and SPS concentration fixed at 7 and 0.3g/L, respectively (Fig. 4). Both fluorite and barite showed an incremental recovery when the water temperature rose from 5 to 25°C. The recovery of fluorite climbed slowly from 75.40% (5°C) to 81.36% (25°C); for barite, the recovery grew slightly from 72.69% to 78.64%. Therefore, it can be concluded that SPS functions well at low temperatures and its performance is not sensitive to temperature.

Fig. 4.

Effect of water temperature on recovery of fluorite and barite using SPS (pH 7, CSPS=0.3g/L).

(0.08MB).
3.2Effect of SHMP on flotability of fluorite and barite

The above flotation results indicate that the flotability of fluorite and barite in different cases seems to be similar. Thus, it is problematic to separate fluorite from barite using SPS as a collector without depressants. To handle this problem, SHMP was applied as an inhibitor to separate fluorite from barite. The impact of pH value and SHMP concentration was investigated, and the results are shown in Figs. 5 and 6.

Fig. 5.

Effect of pH value on recovery of fluorite and barite with SHMP (CSPS=0.3g/L, CSHMP=2.78×10−6M).

(0.12MB).
Fig. 6.

Effect of SHMP dosage on recovery of fluorite and barite (pH 11, CSPS=0.3g/L).

(0.1MB).

Fig. 5 illustrates that SHMP has a strong inhibition on both fluorite and barite in the pH range 3–11, and fluorite has a lower recovery than barite. The recovery of fluorite decreased as the pH value increased from 3 to 11, and the final value was 6.60%. However, barite showed a different pattern as its recovery increased when the pH value was above 7 after a decrease in the acidic condition, and the final value was 38.04%. Furthermore, the maximum difference in recovery between fluorite and barite was achieved with the pH fixed at 11.

The flotability of fluorite and barite as a function of SHMP concentration is shown in Fig. 6. An increase in the SHMP dosage had a negative influence on the recoveries of both fluorite and barite when the pH was fixed at 11. The recovery of fluorite decreased more rapidly than barite when the SHMP concentration was increased to 2.29×10−6M and the difference in recovery was about 60%. With a further increase in the SHMP dosage, the difference in recovery between fluorite and barite reduced.

3.3Flotation of artificial mixed minerals

Flotation tests on artificially mixed minerals of fluorite (0.5g) and barite (1.5g) were conducted three times to measure the separation efficiency of SHMP, and the average results are summarized in Table 2. The concentrate contained 93.74% barite with a low fluorite contamination, with the recovery of barite being 88.71%, while that of fluorite was 17.77%. Therefore, fluorite can be significantly removed with the selected reagent scheme. Obviously, the effectual separation of barite from fluorite was possible using SHMP as a depressant.

Table 2.

Flotation results of artificial mixed minerals with the reagent scheme of “SPS (0.3gL−1)+SHMP (1.28×10−6molL−1)” at pH 11.

  Yield/%  Grade/%Recovery/%
    Fluorite  Barite  Fluorite  Barite 
Concentrate  70.98  6.26  93.74  17.77  88.71 
Tailing  29.02  70.84  29.16  82.23  11.29 
Raw material  100.00  25.00  75.00  100.00  100.00 
3.4FTIR spectrum analyses

FTIR spectroscopic analyses were conducted to uncover the interaction mechanism of SPS with the fluorite and barite surfaces, and the results are shown in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7.

Infrared spectra of minerals treated by SPS.

(0.28MB).

The infrared spectrum of SPS shows that the broad band around 3442cm−1 was attributed to the OH bond stretching vibration, while the frequencies at 2932cm−1 and 2853cm−1 were attributed to the stretching vibration of the alkyl groups [1,13]. The frequencies at 1630cm−1, 1575cm−1, and 1452cm−1 were the result of the vibration of the CC bond of the benzene ring, and the frequency at 826cm−1 arose from the out-of-plane CH-bond deformation vibration [14]. Typically, frequencies at 1184cm−1 and 1051cm−1 are assigned to the stretching vibration of SO bonds [14,15], which verifies the existence of sulfonic groups.

After treatment with SPS, several new peaks occurred compared with the pure fluorite spectrum. The frequencies at 2953cm−1, 2925cm−1, 2868cm−1, and 1383cm−1 were attributed to the alkyl groups in SPS, demonstrating that SPS has strong adsorption on a fluorite surface. The frequencies located at 1131cm−1, 990cm−1, and 748cm−1 in SPS shifted to 1123cm−1, 983cm−1, and 719cm−1, respectively. These obvious shifts reveal that the SPS-fluorite interaction may occur through chemical bonding [16,17].

The spectra of SPS, barite, and barite treated with SPS show some differences. The characteristic bands of barite occurred at 1181cm−1, 1084cm−1, 982cm−1, 630cm−1, and 610cm−1. Frequencies at 1181cm−1 and 1084cm−1 were attributed to the asymmetric stretch vibration of SO42−. The frequency at 982cm−1 was the result of the symmetric stretch vibration of SO42−. In addition, frequencies at 632cm−1 and 610cm−1 were the result of the bending vibrations of SO42−[18]. With the adsorption of SPS, new bands were observed at 2924cm−1 and 2854cm−1, which were attributed to the alkyl groups in SPS, illustrating that SPS adsorbed on the barite surface. In the range 1200–500cm−1, several characteristic bands of barite and SPS were almost the same, so it is difficult to examine the interaction form at these frequencies.

The flotation results with SHMP show that SHMP has a strong interaction with minerals, and the hidden mechanism was investigated through FTIR (Fig. 8). The infrared spectrum of SHMP shows that frequencies at 1280cm−1 and 1161cm−1 were attributed to the PO bond, the frequencies at 1110cm−1 and 1007cm−1 to the PO bond, and the frequency at 893cm−1 to the POP bond [19,20].

Fig. 8.

Infrared spectra of minerals treated by SHMP and SPS.

(0.3MB).

With the adsorption of SHMP, several characteristic bands of fluorite shifted. The frequencies located at 1635cm−1 (OH stretching vibration), 1414cm−1, and 1171cm−1 in fluorite shifted to 1631cm−1, 1455cm−1, and 1177cm−1, respectively. These obvious shifts reveal that SHMP-fluorite interaction may occur through chemical bonding. Compared with Fig. 7, Fig. 8 shows several features: (1) both of the two curves contain the characteristic bands of SPS, indicating that SPS can still adsorb on the fluorite surface in the presence of SHMP and (2) frequencies at 1575cm−1, 1108cm−1, 1045cm−1, and 876cm−1 disappeared with the addition of SHMP; in addition, substantial shifts cannot be seen.

For barite, the addition of SHMP had little effect on its spectrum, and there was almost no shift when compared with that of fluorite. Furthermore, there was no new band or apparent shift. Therefore, it can be concluded that SHMP has a weak adsorption on a barite surface.

3.5Zeta potential measurement results

To better understand the adsorption of SPS and SHMP on fluorite and barite, the electrokinetic potential of fluorite and barite in the absence and presence of SPS and SHMP were measured, and the results are plotted in Figs. 9 and 10.

Fig. 9.

Zeta potentials of fluorite and barite in the presence and absence of SPS. (CSPS=0.3g/L).

(0.13MB).
Fig. 10.

Zeta potentials of fluorite and barite in the presence and absence of SHMP. (CSHMP=2.29×10−6M, CSPS=0.3g/L).

(0.16MB).

As shown in Fig. 9, fluorite and barite exhibited an iso-electric point at pH 9.2 and pH 4.7, respectively. These results are in the range of previous reports [1,2,21]. It can be seen that SPS has an obvious impact on fluorite and barite surfaces. Zeta potentials for both fluorite and barite showed a substantial decrease in the presence of SPS. Fig. 9 indicates that SPS can adsorb on both fluorite and barite surfaces in a wide pH range (3–11), even if the mineral surface is negatively charged.

The addition of SHMP had a negative impact on the zeta potentials of fluorite and barite, demonstrating that SHMP can adsorb on fluorite and barite surfaces easily; however, the extent is different. SHMP drastically reduced the zeta potential for fluorite with an average decline of 20.14mV in the 3–11 pH range. For barite, the average decrease was about 3.37mV. These results indicate that the interaction between SHMP and fluorite is stronger than that of barite. The “SHMP+SPS” addition resulted in different zeta potential variations in the fluorite and barite flotation systems. The addition of SPS caused a slight reduction in the zeta potential of the “fluorite+SHMP” surface, indicating that SPS cannot favorably adsorb on a fluorite surface treated with SHMP. In the case of barite, the decrease of the zeta potential of the “barite+SHMP” surface was noticeable with the addition of SPS, showing that SPS can further adsorb on a “barite+SHMP” surface easily. The average reduction of the “barite+SHMP” surface was 24.91mV, which was higher than that of the “fluorite+SHMP” surface (3.95mV). This distinction can explain the selective inhibition for fluorite with the addition of “SHMP+SPS.”

To research the selective depression performance of SHMP, the species distribution diagram of SHMP shows that HPO42− and H2PO4 are the main components in the pH range 3–11 [20]. As reported, these anionic species have strong complexation ability with metal ions, especially Ca2+ ions, and the complexes are soluble [12,19,22]. Since Ca2+ ions were on the surface of fluorite, SHMP could absorb on the surface of fluorite more easily than that of barite. Hence, the zeta potentials on the surface of fluorite decreased more dramatically, and SHMP occupied the Ca sites which were active sites for the adsorption of anionic collector SPS. As a result, less SPS adsorbed on the surface of fluorite with the presence of SHMP, and the recovery of fluorite showed a considerable reduction.

4Conclusions

SPS was used as a collector to study the flotation behavior of fluorite and barite with SHMP as a depressant. The flotation results showed that SPS performed well in an alkaline pulp even at a low temperature (5°C), while the flotability of fluorite and barite were almost the same. At pH 11, the presence of SHMP obviously depressed fluorite rather than barite and SHMP exhibited good selective inhibition to fluorite. Flotation results of artificially mixed minerals indicated that the reagent scheme of 1.28×10−6molL−1 of SHMP and 0.3gL−1 of SPS at pH 11 obtained selective separation of barite from fluorite. FTIR spectra and zeta potential results showed that SPS adsorbs on fluorite and barite surfaces; however, SHMP had little effect on the adsorption of SPS on a barite surface, although it interfered with the adsorption of SPS on a fluorite surface through strong adsorption.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the financial support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51704219) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (WUT: 2016IVA048).

References
[1]
Z. Chen, Z. Ren, H. Gao, Y. Qian, R. Zheng.
Effect of modified starch on separation of fluorite from barite using sodium oleate.
Physicochem Probl Mi, 54 (2018), pp. 228-237
[2]
Z. Gao, Y. Gao, Y. Zhu, Y. Hu, W. Sun.
Selective flotation of calcite from fluorite: a novel reagent schedule.
Minerals, 6 (2016), pp. 114
[3]
M. Asadi, M.T. Mohammadi, F. Moosakazemi, M.J. Esmaeili, M. Zakeri.
Development of an environmentally friendly flowsheet to produce acid grade fluorite concentrate.
J Clean Prod, 186 (2018), pp. 782-798
[4]
C. Chen, H. Zhu, W. Sun, Y. Hu, W. Qin, R. Liu.
Synergetic effect of the mixed anionic/non-ionic collectors in low temperature flotation of scheelite.
Minerals, 7 (2017), pp. 87
[5]
H. Zhu, W. Qin, C. Chen, R. Liu.
Interactions between sodium oleate and polyoxyethylene ether and the application in the low-temperature flotation of scheelite at 283K.
J Surfactants Deterg, 19 (2016), pp. 1289-1295
[6]
Q. Cao, J. Cheng, S. Wen, C. Li, J. Liu.
Synergistic effect of dodecyl sulfonate on apatite flotation with fatty acid collector.
Sep Sci Technol, 51 (2016), pp. 1389-1396
[7]
R. Cheng, C. Li, X. Liu, S. Deng.
Synergism of octane phenol polyoxyethylene-10 and oleic acid in apatite flotation.
Physicochem Probl Mi, 53 (2017), pp. 1214-1227
[8]
Z. Hou, Z. Li, H. Wang.
The interaction of sodium dodecyl sulfonate and petroleum sulfonate with nonionic surfactants (Triton X-100, Triton X-114).
Colloid Surface A, 166 (2000), pp. 243-249
[9]
H. Zhu, H. Deng, C. Chen.
Flotation separation of andalusite from quartz using sodium petroleum sulfonate as collector.
T Nonferr Metal Soc, 25 (2015), pp. 1279-1285
[10]
J. Jin, H. Gao, X. Chen, Y. Peng.
The separation of kyanite from quartz by flotation at acidic pH.
Miner Eng, 92 (2016), pp. 221-228
[11]
Z. Chen, H. Gao, Y. Li, J. Jin, Z. Ren, W. Wang.
Evaluation of sodium petroleum sulfonates with different molecular weights for flotation of kyanite ore.
Physicochem Probl Mi, 53 (2017), pp. 956-968
[12]
C. Li, Y. Lu.
Selective flotation of scheelite from calcium minerals with sodium oleate as a collector and phosphates as modifiers. II. The mechanism of the interaction between phosphate modifiers and minerals.
Int J Miner Process, 10 (1983), pp. 219-235
[13]
L. Xia, H. Zhong, G. Liu, S. Wang.
Utilization of soluble starch as a depressant for the reverse flotation of diaspore from kaolinite.
Miner Eng, 22 (2009), pp. 560-565
[14]
X. Yue.
Study on the composition characterization and interface properties of petroleum sulfonate.
Research Institute of Petroleum Exploration and Development, (2005),
[15]
Z. Wang.
Study on the synthesis and application of the petroleum sulfonates.
China University of Petroleum (East China), (2008),
[16]
P. Xu, J. Li, Z. Chen, H. Ye.
Progresses in applications of infrared spectral analysis technology to flotation process.
Spectrosc Spect Anal, 37 (2017), pp. 2389-2396
[17]
W. Chen, Q. Feng, G. Zhang, Q. Yang, C. Zhang, F. Xu.
The flotation separation of scheelite from calcite and fluorite using dextran sulfate sodium as depressant.
Int J Miner Process, 169 (2017), pp. 53-59
[18]
S. Sivakumar, P. Soundhirarajan, A. Venkatesan, C.P. Khatiwada.
Synthesis, characterization and anti-bacterial activities of pure and Co-doped BaSO4 nanoparticles via chemical precipitation route.
Spectrochim Acta A, 137 (2015), pp. 137-147
[19]
Z. Li, Y. Han, Y. Li, P. Gao.
Effect of serpentine and sodium hexametaphosphate on ascharite flotation.
T Nonferr Metal Soc, 27 (2017), pp. 1841-1848
[20]
Y. Gao, Z. Gao, W. Sun, Z. Yin, J. Wang, Y. Hu.
Adsorption of a novel reagent scheme on scheelite and calcite causing an effective flotation separation.
J Colloid Interf Sci, 512 (2018), pp. 39-46
[21]
Z. Ren, F. Yu, H. Gao, Z. Chen, Y. Peng, L. Liu.
Selective separation of fluorite barite and calcite with valonea extract and sodium fluosilicate as depressants.
Minerals, 7 (2017), pp. 24
[22]
F. Andreola, E. Castellini, T. Manfredini, M. Romagnoli.
The role of sodium hexametaphosphate in the dissolution process of kaolinite and kaolin.
J Eur Ceram Soc, 24 (2004), pp. 2113-2124
Copyright © 2018. Brazilian Metallurgical, Materials and Mining Association
Journal of Materials Research and Technology

Subscribe to our newsletter

Article options
Tools
Cookies policy
To improve our services and products, we use cookies (own or third parties authorized) to show advertising related to client preferences through the analyses of navigation customer behavior. Continuing navigation will be considered as acceptance of this use. You can change the settings or obtain more information by clicking here.