Minerals Beneficiation - Particle-Size Measurement and Control

The specifications of particle size and the size analyses of fine particulate materials are commonly presented without reference to the method of analysis. A review of the various sizing methods showed that not only numerous sources of error but also different definitions of size are inherent in the different methods of analysis. To demonstrate the magnitude of the differences, the size distribution of finely crushed quartz was determined by several methods and a critical comparison of the data was made. The experimental results show that appreciably different sizes may be indicated for one material depending on the method of analysis used. However, because the shape of the size-distribution curves determined by almost all methods was constant, a simple method of correlating the data can be adopted. Conversion factors, by which size measurements obtained by the various methods can be expressed in terms of screen sizes, are presented as one method of correlating the results. The size analysis and size specification for lump rock and particulate materials are commonly determined with sieves. With this technique, a readily reproducible measure of size can be obtained merely by duplicating the sieve and the method of sizing. For coarse materials, such as lumps of rock, this technique is simple and effective; and the effects of properties of the material such as shape can be readily understood. When very small particles are measured, however, problems arise. Small sieves are difficult to construct and maintain, and size separations become sensitive to the analytical procedure. For these difficult sieve sizes and for still smaller particles, other sizing techniques employing, for example, sedimentation, light extinction, and microscopy are available. Because these various techniques employ different size-dependent responses to establish size, it is appropriate to examine them and the results they yield to determine their relationships and their limitations. The 'size' of a lump of rock is not an absolute quantity, but rather a defined one. With sieves, for example, the size is defined by the screen aperture and no reference is made to the actual shape of the particle, yet only in the case of a regular body, such as a sphere, can the sieve size be related to the shape. With sieves only two dimensions of a particle can be suggested, for the sieve makes no allowance for the length of the particle passing through an aperture. Similarly, the size of a particle as measured by a microscopic technique need bear no relationship to the size as measured by sieves, although the two measurements may be related statistically. In fact, all size measurements are not only defined quantities, but the measurement actually used is an average that is controlled by the technique employed and, hopefully, reflects the property in question of the material of interest. Many papers have been presented that illustrate the accuracy of the various sizing methods, present the advantages of certain methods for certain applications, and describe the principles and technical backgrounds of the various methods. No attempt will be made in the present paper to review this work in detail. The purpose of the present paper is to examine the limitations of the various sizing methods, and to demonstrate experimentally the relationships between the sizes as determined by the various methods of analysis. It is hoped that by recognition of these limitations and relationships, errors in size specification and size interpretation will be avoided. REVIEW OF SIZING METHODS In specifying the size of a material, not only the data but also the method of measurement must be stated. For example, the size of the lump might be specified as its total volume, as its weight, as its maximum dimension, or as its minimum cross section; any one definition might be completely satisfactory for one problem, but not for another. In practice, size analyses follow four basic approaches and fortunately, the conditions that restrict each approach are known. These major methods include: 1) screen analysis, 2) direct measurement of particle dimensions, 3) determination of equivalent spherical size in response to fluid flow, and 4) specific surface determination. Each of these techniques has several variations and some new techniques are also available, but the limitations of the basic techniques are sufficient to permit at least a preliminary