The SART Process: Killing the Sacred Cows

"The SART Process was introduced to the gold mining industry in the late 1990s and several commercial plants were built over the following 10 to 15 years. Most of these plants have operated well and enjoyed plant performance in line with expectations based on the underlying chemistry of the process. However, two of the plants have consistently suffered from high reagent consumption and poor product quality, which has motivated a re-examination of the process fundamentals.The primary product in the SART Process is synthetic chalcocite, Cu2S, and the stoichiometric requirement for sulphide addition is therefore 0.5 moles per mole of copper in solution. It is shown here that when sulphide is added in excess of this amount (generally with the express purpose of lowering residual copper in solution) it not only fails in its intended purpose, but can have a negative impact on the settling and filtration characteristics of the copper sulphide product, as well as the final product quality. Moreover, these problems are exacerbated the higher the selected operating pH in the pH 3 to 5 range, and the longer the residence time of slurry in this pH range.Freshly precipitated copper sulphide compounds are known to be very fine and slimy, with poor settling and filtration characteristics. It is therefore important to engineer the SART Process in such a way as to encourage growth in the average particle size of the precipitate crystals. This was the rationale for recycling a portion of the thickener underflow to the primary reactor when the SART Process was developed. However, the theory of crystallization predicts that compounds of extremely low solubility, such as chalcocite (Cu2S: KSP = 10-48), are unlikely to experience growth in crystal particle size through heterogeneous nucleation and are more likely to grow through aggregation. On this basis, the SART practice of recycling a portion of thickener underflow to the primary reactor in the commercial plants is unlikely to lead to crystal growth via nucleation, and could in fact promote breakage of the aggregates that formed in the thickener. Recycling thickener underflow could therefore have the opposite of the desired outcome. The result of testwork that is reported here lends credence to this theory and questions the wisdom of recycling in the SART process."