Process Mineralogy of Copper and Lead Concentrates: Uncertainties and Metallurgical Decisions

"We analyzed two copper and lead flotation concentrates from the LaRonde mill using MLA technology (Mineral Liberation Analyzer) to identify the contaminants and to quantify their size and liberation. The MLA mineral quantification was compared with traditional mineralogical techniques (Scanning Electron Microscopy, Optical Microscopy, X-Ray Diffraction and Chemistry). The accuracy of MLA data was then quantify in application to metallurgical decision (mineral identification, mineral quantification, particle sizing and liberation quantification). We prepared five well-known materials from pure minerals and analysed them by MLA. MLA concentrates analyses showed the lead concentrate is mainly contaminated by pyrite and sphalerite. These minerals are liberated above 70 % and present a floatable size around 15 to 35 µm. Surface activation by dissolved lead from galena is therefore assumed for these contaminants. The analyses of the known samples show that mineral quantification and size distribution given by the MLA are consistent with the chemical analyses and the laser particle sizer. The liberation measurement is affected by the stereological effect. Modelling quantifies the overestimation of the particle liberation. Based on the modelling, the stereological shift on liberation should not impact metallurgical conclusions on the concentrate contaminations.INTRODUCTIONTo face the diversity of mineral processing challenges, the process mineralogy includes phase quantification, measurement of mineral size, liberation by exposure and by grade, association, surface contact proportion and texture. In the last decades, two SEM commercial tools emerged: MLA and QEMSCAN R. Both are based on specific combinations of backscattered electrons and X-ray images as well as image analysis routines developed at CANMET (Petruk & Pinard, 1976, Petruk, 1989), CSIRO (Frost, O'Hara, Suddaby, Grant, Reid, Wilson & Zuiderwyk, 1977, Reid, Gottlieb, MacDonald, & Miller, 1984) and JKMRC (Hall, 1977, Gu & Sugden, 1995). Recently, TIMA (TESCAN) and Mineralogic MiningR (ZEISS) supplied automated mineralogy for mining industry (Bouzahzah, Benzaazoua, Graham & Cropp, 2015, Gottlieb & Dosbaba, 2015a). In parallel, home-made routine were developped to resolve mineralogy challenges in mineral process but also in geometallurgy and mining environment (Kahn, Mano, & Tassinari, 2002, Knight, Klassen & Hunt, 2002, Mermillod-Blondin, Benzaazoua, Kongolo, de Donato, Bussiere & Marion, 2011, Hunt & Bradshaw, 2015). SEM mineralogy become essential to operation by setting units on mine sites (MacDonald, Latti, Adair, Bradshaw, & Dunn, 2011, Goergen et al., 2013, Dobbe et al., 2014, Gottlieb & Dosbaba, 2015b)."