Discussion - Milling And Concentration (aa5e82d0-785e-4a41-a98e-9da5a7aea07c)

[Surface Areas of Concentrates and Collector Coatings (T.P. 2002, by A. M. GAUDIN and G. S. PRELLER, Min. Tech., May. Discussion by M. D. HASSIALIS and the authors) . I Activation of Minerals and Adsorption of Collectors (T.P. 2082 by J. ROGERS and K. 1'. SUTHERLAND, Min. Tech., Nov. Discussion by A. F. TAGGART and the authors). . . . 3 Correlation between Mineral Behavior in Cataphoresis and in Flotation (T.P. 2005 by A. If. GAUDIN and S. C. SUN, Min. Tech., May. Discussion by M. D. HASSIALIS). . . . . . 8] Surface Areas of Concentrates and Collector Coatings M. D. HASSIALIS.*-In the current flotation theories there exists a common gap spanned by a common assumption pertaining to the arrangement and orientation of the collector ions at the solid surface. Also common is the belief that contact angle and flotation performance are dependent upon the arrangement and orientation of collector ions. This stimulating and informative paper sheds some light upon this general problem. One of the indices of arrangement is the area available per collector ion; in this connection, Gaudin and Preller have applied the B.E.T. method for surface determinations. In a surprising number of cases, their results show a greater specific surface for tailing than for concentrate. This cannot be accounted for by the differences in specific gravity and is attributed to the presence of clay minerals of "primary" sluices in the tailing. This is not a satisfactory explanation, for experience shows that when free slimed clay minerals are present in a flotation cell they will be carried mechanically into the concentrate. A part of the answer to the decreased specific surface of the concentrate would appear to be its usual flocculated condition, yet this should not entirely account for the large spreads reported. The possibility occurs that the nitrogen adsorption isotherms for clean mineral and collector-coated mineral are different. If that were true, and if the coated mineral surface exhibited decreased adsorptive powers, the discrepancy might vanish. In discussing the disposition of collector ions at mineral surfaces, the authors adopt the more consistent viewpoint that there exists some agreement between the ions of the substrate and those of the superstrate. In the case of xanthate ions on galena, a possible arrangement is shown in Fig. 2. This arrangement shows every xanthate ion being shared by two lead ions, whereas the chemical composition calls for two xanthate ions for each lead ion (p. g). This whole discussion is misleading. In the first place, it is known that xanthate ions are not abstracted by unoxidized galena, hence Fig. 2 should show as the substrate not Pbs but PbS„ Om. It would be equally erroneous to use the lattice arrangement of PGSO4, since the surface properties of xanthate-conditioned anglesite differ from those of xanthated galena. It is highly probable that the state of the galena surface exploited in its flotation is ephemeral, since weathered galena is only poorly, if at all, collected by xanthate. Just how a substrate of oxidized galena is to be pictured depends upon one's conception of the transformation from galena to anglesite. This writer is inclined to the following sequence of events. Surface sulphide ions undergo progressive oxidation. As more oxygen is taken up by the sulphide ions they become displaced from their equilibrium positions in the galena lattice, thus accommodating for the larger volume of the S„ Om ions. Concomittant with this change the forces acting on the lead ions