DECLARATION

I MOHAMED RASHID MOHAMED, a student of Dar es salaam Institute of Technology

undertaking a Bachelor Degree in Mining Engineering with registration number
210140625117 do hereby declare that this work is my own and that of other people has been
accordingly acknowledged and cited. I also declare that the work is not a duplication of any
work done by other people at African Minerals and Geoscience Centre and/or indeed any other
institution, but, purely and entirely work of my own hands.

Signature ……………………

Date ………………………

APPROVALS

Name of Supervisor Signature of Supervisor Date

TIBIIKA JULIETH ………………………. ………………

i
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to almighty God for giving me the strength
and composure to prepare this report within the scheduled time.
Secondly, I would like to thanks my family and my friends, who supported me with love and
understanding without them I could never finalizing this work may God bless them.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to the Chief Chemist Mr. Charles Buteta, Mr. Alex Mkama
Senior Engineer MPSSM and Environment Chemical Analysist Miss Mariama, Miss Gifti, Mr.
Hassan and Mr. Priver and Engineering geology Mr. Simba and other staff members of African
minerals and geosciences centre for their valuable guidance, interest, cooperation, training and
encouragement they have given to me at various stages of my training period.
Last but not least, I acknowledge the Department of Civil Engineering and my project supervisor
Miss. Julieth Tibiika for supervising the whole process of preparing the final year project and
also for coordinating all the presentation conducted.

ii
ABSTARCT
This project is dealing with optimization of froth flotation parameters so as to increase the
graphite concentrate recovery, where by it is going to consider main parameters that govern
the graphite concentrate recovery during flotation process which are grinding particle size,
flotation reagent, aeration and mixing, pulp density, pulp pH value, and flotation time. The
outcome results suggest the use of new established parameters during the experiments so as to
recover more graphite concentrate and reducing loss.

This project report comprises four chapters which are introduction of the project, literature
review, methodology, and data collection.

The first chapter which is introduction explains about the nature of the industry and problem
to be analysed, the problem statement with main and specific objectives of the project, the
scope and significance of the study. The second chapter, Literature review, it looks about
various theoretical principles and equations to be applied in the project. The third chapter which
is the methodology describe about various methods and techniques used in the collection and
analysis of the data. The last chapter explains the data that was collected that can help to solve
and show what result in experiments.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION...................................................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT....................................................................................................................... ii
ABSTARCT ........................................................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................... vii
CHAPTER 01 .......................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Company ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Location/Direction ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Problem statement ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Main objective............................................................................................................................... 2
1.5 Specific objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.6 Scope of the project....................................................................................................................... 2
1.7 Significance of the project ............................................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Froth Flotation............................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Graphite Flotation Reagents.......................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Factors Affecting Graphite Flotation ............................................................................................ 7
2.4 Performance Calculations ............................................................................................................. 9
CHAPTER 3 .......................................................................................................................................... 11
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 11
3.1 Methods of data collection .......................................................................................................... 11
3.2 Materials and equipment used in primary data collection........................................................... 11
3.3 Experiment .................................................................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER 4 .......................................................................................................................................... 13
DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 05 ........................................................................................................................................ 16
DATA RESULTS AND INTERPRITATION ...................................................................................... 16
5.1 The analysis results ..................................................................................................................... 16
5.2 The flotation experiments results. ............................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER 06 ........................................................................................................................................ 20
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................... 20
6.1 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 20
6.2 RECOMMENDATION .............................................................................................................. 21
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 22

iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the concept of flotation (Wills & Napier-Munn, 2016)...... 5
Figure 2: Froth flotation stages. ................................................................................................. 7
Figure 3: Typical form of Grade/Recovery Curves for froth flotation .................................... 10

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Result of XRF analysis. ............................................................................................. 13
Table 2: Result of proximate analysis ...................................................................................... 13
Table 3: Flotation test results for different sieve sizes ............................................................. 13
Table 4: Flotation test results obtained by varying kerosene as collector ................................ 14
Table 5: Flotation test results obtained by varying MIBC as frother ....................................... 14
Table 6: Flotation test results by varying sodium silicate as depressant .................................. 14
Table 7: Flotation test results obtained by varying pH value ................................................... 15

vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AMGC African Minerals and Geosciences Centre.

XRF X-rays Fluorescence Spectrometry.

XRD X-rays Diffraction Analysis.

ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma.

pH potential of Hydrogen.

Kg Kilogram

MIBC Methyl Isobutyl Carbinol

vii
 CHAPTER 01
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Company

The African Minerals and Geosciences Centre (AMGC), formerly known as SEAMIC is an
independent regional centre of knowledge and information for southern and eastern Africa
established in 1977, under the umbrella of the United Nations Economic Commission for
Africa (UNECA). Founder member States are Ethiopia, Mozambique and Tanzania, later on
joined by Angola, the Comoros and Uganda. Kenya joined the Centre in 2006. The Sudan is
the new member of the Centre joining in 2010. Membership is open to all other African
countries.

About African Minerals and Geosciences Centre (AMGC): AMGC is an ISO 9001-2008
certified, high tech minerals related laboratory, training and consultancy services for the
southern and eastern Africa region with clients comprising of governments, mining
companies, small scale miners and related. It has 5 unique laboratories.

1. The Chemical and Environmental Laboratory analyses various types of geological and
environmental materials applying wet chemistry, XRF, XRD, ICP and mercury
analytical techniques.
2. The Mineral Processing and Small-Scale Mining Laboratory conducts mineral
beneficiation services to provide basic data that is required for ore reserve estimation
that would enable the economic viability of a mine.
3. The Mineralogy, Petrology and Gemology Laboratory deals with the testing and
identification of rocks, minerals, clays and sediments and carries out gemstones and
diamonds identification, grading, certification.
4. The Industrial Minerals Application Laboratory service produces ceramic products and
product design and ceramics prototype production.
5. The Geo-Information Laboratory provides GIS, remote sensing applications and
geoinformatics data processing services.

The institution also conducts applied research and development activities particularly for
industrial minerals development, small-scale production of ceramics, specialized training,
commercial laboratory work and consultancy service upon request.

1
At African Minerals and Geosciences Centre uses froth flotation method to recover graphite
from its ore in the Mineral Processing and Small-Scale Mining Laboratory. Currently, they
use palm oil (as frother), kerosene (as collector), and sodium silicate (as depressant modifier)
as flotation reagents, that are dosed into 25% solid slurry, without exact quantity of dosagee.

1.2 Location/Direction

AMGC is located at Kunduchi Beach Area Dar es Salaamnear to Bahari Beach Hotel, about
3.7 km from Bagamoyo Road through White Sand Road and Seamic drive.

1.3 Problem statement

During the process of extraction, the current flotation process is not operating at its maximum
efficiency resulting in lower graphite recovery rates (of about 50% of fixed carbon from
concentrate, while the required recovery is to be increased at least by 60% of fixed carbon from
the concentrate) and potential loses of valuable graphite particles in the tailing. Therefore, there
is a need to identify and address the challenges and limitations of the existing flotation
parameters to enhance graphite recovery and reduce the overall loss of the graphite concentrate
to the tailings.

1.4 Main objective

To optimize the froth flotation parameters to increase recovery of graphite concentrate at

African Minerals and Geosciences Centre.

1.5 Specific objectives

i To analyse graphite and gangue minerals in the graphite ore.

ii To analyses the impact of froth flotation reagents.

iii To establish the optimum particle size for graphite recovery.

1.6 Scope of the project

This project is focusing on improving the recovery of graphite concentrate using froth flotation.
Froth flotation is a widely used method for separating minerals from ores based on their
hydrophobicity. This could involve optimizing various parameters such as pH, reagent dosage,
agitation speed, and flotation time to enhance the efficiency of the process.

2
1.7 Significance of the project

At the end of this project the optimized flotation parameters obtained will help in reducing
greater loss of the graphite concentrate toward the tailings.

3
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Graphite is an allotrope of carbon, characterized by a hexagonal structure, with weak bonds
between the carbon layers that facilitate easy cleavage, which makes it one of the softest
substances known (Andrew. Scogings & Daryl. Evans, 2019). Graphite is gray to black,
opaque, very soft, and has a low density and a metallic luster. It is flexible and exhibits both
physical, metallic and non-metallic properties, making it suitable for diverse industrial
applications. Physical properties include a specific gravity of 2.2kg/m3 and Mohs hardness of
1–2. Metallic properties include thermal and electrical conductivity, whereas non-metallic
properties include chemical inertness, high thermal resistance, and lubricity (Wakamatsu &
Numatai, 1991; Bulatovic, 2015). Naturally graphite occurs in three forms, described as
amorphous, flake, and vein (Wakamatsu & Numatai, 1991).

Graphite is naturally hydrophobic, and this property is conveniently leveraged via the use of
flotation, targeting selective separation of hydrophobic graphite from hydrophilic gangue
(Wills & Napier-Munn, 2016).

2.1 Froth Flotation

Flotation is a method of mineral separation based on surface chemical properties of minerals

(Wills & Napier-Munn, 2016). The relevant surface property is wettability.

Minerals that are wettable are said to be hydrophilic and those that are non-wettable are called
hydrophobic.

If air bubbles are introduced in to a pulp containing a mixture of hydrophobic and hydrophilic
minerals, hydrophobic minerals attach themselves to the air bubbles and rise with them to the
top of the pulp from where they may subsequently be removed.

4
 Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the concept of flotation (Wills & Napier-Munn, 2016).

Hydrophilic particles do not attach to air bubbles and hence remain in the pulp. As a result, a
separation is achieved between the hydrophobic and hydrophilic minerals.

Using a variety of reagents accomplishing different purposes for each specific mineral makes
mineral separation by flotation process possible (Bulatovic, 2015). These reagents are classified
based on function accomplished by it. On this basis, reagents are divided into collectors,
frothers, regulators and depressants. The following is the classification of reagents based on
functions

Collectors are a fairly large group of organic chemical compounds, which differ in chemical
composition and function (Habashi, 2001). The basic purpose of the collector is to selectively
form a hydrophobic layer on a given mineral surface in the flotation pulp and thus provide
conditions for attachment of the hydrophobic particles to air bubbles and recovery of such
particles in the froth product. According to the ability of collectors to dissociate in water, they
can be divided into distinct groups.

Ionizing collectors consist of heteropolar organic molecules (Bulatovic, 2015). Depending on

the resulting charge, the collector assumes the character of a cation or anion.

Anionic collectors are further classified into oxhydryl and sulfhydryl collectors on the basis of
their solidophilic property.

5
Cationic collectors are chemical compounds in which the hydrocarbon radical is preconized.
These reagents are amines from which the primary amines are the most important flotation
collectors (i.e., R-NH2) (Bulatovic, 2015).

Non-ionizing collectors are also divided into two groups. The members of the first group are
the reagents containing bivalent sulfur. The second group contain non-polar hydrocar bon oils.

Frothers are heteropolar surface-active compounds that lower the surface tension of water and
have the ability to adsorb on the air bubble–water interface (Andrew. Scogings & Daryl. Evans,
2019). Their presence in the liquid phase increases the film strength of the air bubbles, thus
providing better attachment of hydrophobic particles to the bubbles (Wills & Napier-Munn,
2016). Surface tension also affects the size of the air bubbles. The effectiveness of some of the
frothers is very much dependent.

Regulator activators, depressants and pH regulators are often referred to in the literature as
modifiers or regulators of the flotation process (Bulatovic, 2015). The main purpose of these
reagents is to modify the action of the collector on mineral surfaces and as a consequence
govern the selectivity of the flotation process (Andrew. Scogings & Daryl. Evans, 2019). In the
presence of regulators, the collector only adsorbs on particles that are targeted for recovery. pH
regulators regulate the ionic composition of the pulp by changing the concentration of the
hydrogen ion in the pulp.

The flotation performed at flotation cells, these cells can be categorized as rougher cells,
scavenger cells and cleaner cells. At rougher cell involves the operation of removal of a rough
concentrate at the earliest stage of treatment of the ground ore is done. While in scavenger cell
involves operation of removal of the last recoverable fraction of valuables before discarding
the final tailing from the treatment plant. Lastly, cleaner cell involves operation of re-treating
the rough concentrate to improve its quality.

6
 Figure 2: Froth flotation stages.

2.2 Graphite Flotation Reagents.

Collector, the commonly used collectors for flotation crystal graphite are kerosene, diesel oil,
heavy oil, sulfonate, sulfate, phenol and carboxylate (Bulatovic, 2015).

Frothers acts upon the air water interface. Frothers help produce the fine bubbles necessary to
increase collision rates and to help maintain a reasonably stable froth (Wills & Napier-Munn,
2016). The common foaming agents are pine oil, methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC), ethyl
alcohol, dowfroth 250 and polyglycol-based frothers.

Depressants are inorganic chemicals that used to selectively prevent some minerals from being
floated (Habashi, 2001; Wills & Napier-Munn, 2016). The commonly used depressants are
sodium silicate, and starch

Regulators these either activate or depress mineral attachment to air bubbles and are also used
to control particle dispersion and the pH of the system (Bulatovic, 2015). The pH can be
adjusted between 7-9 using either lime or caustic soda.

2.3 Factors Affecting Graphite Flotation

In order to archive higher performance in flotation processes the following factors should be
taken into account:

Grinding Particle Size: Both large ore particles (larger than 0.1mm) and small ore particles
(less than 0.006mm) affect flotation efficiency and mineral recovery. In the case of flotation

7
coarse particles, due to the heavyweight, it is not easy to suspend in the flotation machine, and
the chance of collision with the bubbles is reduced. During, the fine particles flotation
separation process, the fine particles are small in volume and the possibility of collision with
the bubbles is small (jxscmachine, 2018, December 20).

Flotation Reagent: The type and quantity of the reagent added during the flotation process,
the dosing place and the dosing method are collectively referred to as the drug system, also
known as the prescription. (Jordan, 2022). In the ore dressing, it is necessary to pass the ore
selectivity test in order to determine the type and quantity of the agent, and in practice, the
number, location and mode of dosing should be constantly revised and improved.

Aeration and Mixing: In addition to oxygen, nitrogen and inert gases, there are carbon dioxide
and water vapor in the air. The gas has a selective effect on the surface of the mineral, oxygen
is the most important factor affecting the surface of minerals (jxscmachine, 2018, December
20). If the action time is too long, the mineral surface will return to hydrophilicity. When the
gas adsorption conditions are appropriate, the mineral surface will be drained, the flotation
mineral processing can be done even without a flotation agent.
Stirring the slurry can promote the suspension of the ore particles and evenly disperse in the
tank, thus promote the good dispersion of the air and make it evenly distributed in the tank,
further can promote the enhanced dissolution of air in the high-pressure area of the tank, and
strengthen the precipitation in the low-pressure area (911Metallurgist, 2023).

Pulp Density: The mineral with large flotation density uses a thicker slurry, while the mineral
with a small flotation density uses a thinner slurry (Wills & Napier-Munn, 2016). The increase
of slurry density the increase of recovery, graphite grade and energy consumption.

Pulp pH Value: The pH of the pulp refers to the concentration of OH– and H+ in the slurry,
which is generally expressed by the PH value. Various minerals have a “floating” and
“nonfloating” pH when using different flotation agents for flotation (D. V. Suba, 2016).
Therefore, controlling the pH value of the slurry is one of the important measures to control the
flotation process.
Flotation Time: The flotation time directly affects the quality of the indicator. The time is too
long, the grade of the concentrate is reduced; the time is too short and the grade of the tailings
is increased (jxscmachine, 2018, December 20). Therefore, the flotation time required for
various Minerals must be determined by experimentation.

8
 2.4 Performance Calculations

There is no one universal method for expressing the effectiveness of a separation, but there are
several methods that are useful for examining froth flotation processes:

a) Ratio of Concentration

The weight of the feed relative to the weight of the concentrate, The Ratio of Concentration is
F/C, where F is the total weight of the feed and C is the total weight of the concentrate. One
limitation with this calculation is that it uses the weights of the feed and concentrate. While
this data is available in laboratory experiments, in the plant it is likely that the ore is not
weighed and only assays will be available. However, it is possible to express the ratio of
concentration in terms of ore assays. Starting with the mass balance equations, and the
definition of the ratio of concentration:

F=C+T Ff = Cc + Tt Ratio of Concentration = F/C

where F, C, and T are the % weights of the feed, concentrate, and tailings, respectively; and
f, c, and t are the assays of the feed, concentrate, and tailings. We now need to eliminate T
from these equations so that we can solve for F/C:

Ff = Cc + Tt, and multiplying (F = C + T) by t gives us:

Ft = Ct + Tt, so subtracting this equation from the previous eliminates T and gives:

F (f - t) = C (c - t), and rearranging produces the equation for the ratio of

concentration:

F/C = (c – t)/ (f – t)

b) Percentage Metal Recovery.

Also is a percentage of the metal in the original feed that is recovered in the concentrate.
This can be calculated using weights and assays, as (Cc)/(Ff)·100. Or, since C/F = (f – t)/ (c
– t), the % Metal Recovery can be calculated from assays alone using 100(c/f) (f – t)/ (c – t).

c) Percentage Metal Loss

Is the opposite of the % Metal Recovery, and represents the material lost to the tailings. It
can be calculated simply by subtracting the % Metal Recovery from 100%.

d) Percentage Weight Recovery

Is essentially the inverse of the ratio of concentration, and equals 100·C/F = 100· (f – t)/
(c – t).

9
e) Enrichment Ratio
It is calculated directly from assays as c/f, weights are not involved in the calculation.

2.5 Grade/Recovery Curves

While each of these single calculated values are useful for comparing flotation performance
for different conditions, it is most useful to consider both the grade and the recovery
simultaneously, using a “Grade/Recovery Curve”. This is a graph of the recovery of the
valuable metal achieved versus the product grade at that recovery, and is particularly useful
for comparing separations where both the grade and the recovery are varying. A set of
grade/recovery curves is shown in the figure 3 below. If 100% of the feed is recovered to the
product, then the product will obviously have the same composition as the feed, and so the
curve starts at the feed composition with 100% recovery. Similarly, if the purest mineral grain
that contains the metal of interest is removed, this will be the maximum grade that can be
produced by a physical separation, and so the 0% recovery end of the curve terminates at an
assay less than or equal to the assay of the purest grains available in the ore. In the graphs
shown in Figure 2, points that are higher and to the right show better performance than points
that are lower and to the left.

Figure 3: Typical form of Grade/Recovery Curves for froth flotation

10
 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
To optimize the froth flotation parameters to increase recovery of graphite concentrate at
African Minerals and Geosciences Centre, both quantitative and qualitative techniques were
used to collect primary data before, within and after froth flotation process.

3.1 Methods of data collection

a) Primary data
The primary data was collected directly from the laboratory through conducted experiments and
observation. These involved, analysis of the graphite ore (head) prior to flotation process so as to
get primary percentage composition of the graphite and gangue minerals from the ore, undertaking
batch flotation by considering those factors affecting flotation process such as particle size, pulp
density, flotation reagents, pulp Ph value and flotation time.

b) Secondary data.
These are the information obtained from previous conducted experiments.

3.2 Materials and equipment used in primary data collection

a) XRF machine for measuring graphite concentration in the crushed ore sample, tailings
and concentrate.
b) WEMCO laboratory agitating machine so as to mix pulp with reagents.
c) WEMCO laboratory flotation machine to conduct flotation method.
d) 5kg of the graphite ore sample.
e) Set of sieves and laboratory sieve shaking machine for particle size distribution.
f) Flotation reagents (kerosene as collector, MIBC as frother, sodium silicate as
depressant).
g) pH paper for measuring pH value of the pulp.
h) Stop watch for agitation and flotation time recording.
i) Drying oven (of maximum temperature 2000C) for concentrate and tailing drying after

flotation process.

j) Grinding mill for size reduction of the graphite ore.

k) Weighing balance for measuring weight.

11
3.3 Experiment

a) The pellet sample of graphite ore was prepared by taking 5g of the ore sample mixing with
0.7g of wax, and put into compressing machine to produce pellet. Finally, the pellet was sent to
XRF and proximate analyzer for analysis.

b) The graphite ore were crushed, pulverized, coned and quartered to yield a representative
sample. Elemental composition was determined by the use of X-ray Fluorescence (XRF)
machine; Five (5) grams of the prepared sample weighed into a sample cup and carefully placed
in measuring position on the machine. The machine was switched on, set at 14 and 20kV for
major and trace elements respectively. The concentration process adopted was froth flotation,
on a WEMCO laboratory flotation machine. The speed of the machine’s impeller was kept
constant at 1500 rpm for both conditioning and flotation. The pulps (of 25% solids, 200g of ore
and 600g or 600ml of water) were mixed for three minutes in the WEMCO laboratory agitating
machine prior to addition of collector (Kerosene) and after an additional mixing of three
minutes, the frother (Methyl isobutyl carbinol) and depressant (Sodium silicate) was added, and
finally followed with sodium carbonate to control pH level. After three-minute mixing period,
the pulp was introduced to frothing machine and air was introduced into the cell and the froth
products were collected for five minutes. Three factors such as; particle size, reagent dosage
(frother, depressant and collector), and pH value were properly considered in the experiment at
three different levels.
i. Size fractions (63µm, 50µm, and 45m)
ii. pH ranges (8, 8.5 and 9). Na2CO3 was used to adjust the pH
iii. Dosages of sodium silicate (2, 3 and 4 ml/200 g) as
depressant
iv. Dosages of MIBC (2, 3 and 4 ml/200 g) as frother
v. Dosages kerosene (2, 3 and 4 ml/200 g) as collector

12
 CHAPTER 4
DATA COLLECTION
The following tables show the results of XRF and proximate analysis, and 6 different
experiments done so as to get the optimized froth flotation parameters to increase graphite
concentrate recovery.

Table 1: Result of XRF analysis that shows percentage presence by mass of different gangue
minerals within the graphite ore.

Component Si Al2 Fe2 Ca S MgO K2 Na Ti P2 P2 Ba V2 MnO

O O5
O2 O3 O3 O O 2O O2 O5 O O5
3

%Mass 65.74 12.14 4.53 4.22 3.67 3.07 2.26 1.95 0.59 0.57 0.57 0.33 0.24 0.12

Table 2: Result of proximate analysis that shows percentage presence of fixed carbon in the
graphite ore together with other essential properties.

Content percentage %
Head sample
Moisture Volatile matter Ash content Fixed carbon
content
14.11 18.26 31.42 36.21

Table 3: Flotation test results obtained by varying different selected sieve sizes.

Feed Products
Sieve size Wt. FC Concentrates Tailings Recovery Ratio Enrichment
(Nominal) (g) (%) (%) of ratio (c/f)
(µm) conc.
(F/C)
Wt.(g) FC Wt.(g) FC
(%) (%)
63 200 36.21 82.13 65.40 117.87 9.42 86.43 2.41 1.81
50 200 36.21 92.13 68.60 107.87 6.31 90.93 2.17 1.89
45 200 36.21 90.62 67.60 109.38 6.32 91.05 2.21 1.86

13
Table 4: Flotation test results obtained by varying kerosene as collector.

Feed Products
Reagent Wt. FC Concentrates Tailings Recovery Ratio of Enrichment
dosage (g) (%) (%) conc. ratio (c/f)
(ml) (F/C)
Wt.(g) FC Wt.(g) FC
(%) (%)
2 200 36.21 79.52 63.22 120.48 6.79 91.02 2.52 1.74
3 200 36.21 117.49 55.82 92.51 7.27 91.89 1.70 1.54
4 200 36.21 134.86 38.26 79.14 9.66 98.08 1.48 1.05

Table 5: Flotation test results obtained by varying MIBC as frother.

Feed Products
Reagent Wt. FC Concentrates Tailings Recovery Ratio Enrichment
dosage (g) (%) (%) of ratio (c/f)
(ml) conc.
(F/C)
Wt.(g) FC Wt.(g) FC
(%) (%)
2 200 36.21 73.47 79.02 126.53 10.06 82.75 2.72 2.18
3 200 36.21 94.59 61.86 105.41 8.56 88.62 2.11 1.71
4 200 36.21 118.55 55.33 81.45 10.81 87.17 1.69 1.53

Table 6: Flotation test results by varying sodium silicate as depressant.

Feed Products
Reagent Wt. FC Concentrates Tailings Recovery Ratio of Enrichment
dosage (g) (%) (%) conc ratio (c/f)
(ml) (F/C)
Wt.(g) FC Wt.(g) FC
(%) (%)
2 200 36.21 64.67 85.35 135.33 7.55 86.33 3.09 2.56
3 200 36.21 60.11 88.86 139.89 9.39 82.82 3.33 2.45
4 200 36.21 76.92 70.55 123.08 10.51 83.39 2.60 1.95

14
 Table 7: Flotation test results obtained by varying pH value.

Feed Products
pH Wt. FC Concentrates Tailings Recovery Ratio of Enrichment
value (g) (%) (%) conc. ratio (c/f)
(F/C)
Wt.(g) FC Wt.(g) FC
(%) (%)
8 200 36.21 69.12 79.20 130.88 9.47 83.87 2.89 2.18
8.5 200 36.21 62.24 86.16 137.76 9.38 83.15 3.21 2.38
9 200 36.21 70.43 77.85 129.57 8.45 86.00 2.84 2.15

Table 8: Flotation test results obtained from optimum concentration parameters.

Optimum parameters Feed Concentrat Tailings Rec R ER
e . C
Particle Kero MIBC Sodium pH Wt. FC Wt FC Wt FC FC
size sene silicate (ml) (g) (%) . (%) . (%) (%)
(ml)
(mµ) (ml) (ml) (g) (g)
50 2 2 3 8.5 200 36.26 5.1 95.4 14 2.4 75.2 3. 2.6
1 2.9 0 5

15
 CHAPTER 05
DATA RESULTS AND INTERPRITATION

5.1 The analysis results

Elemental composition was revealed to be 67.14 % SiO2, 7.036% Fe, Calcium of 4.09%,
Aluminium of 4.35% and 3.70% Potassium by XRF (Table 1). The sample was analysed and
the average Fixed Carbon content of the deposit was found to be 36.21% by proximate
analysis (Table 2). The values 36.21% of Fixed Carbon (FC) and 67.14% of Silica (SiO2) of
the mineral indicate that the graphite is of low grade. However, the presence of the
aforementioned mineral constituents cannot prevent the utilization of the mineral since there
are mineral processing techniques available to beneficiate the material.

5.2 The flotation experiments results.

The following chart shows flotation test results conducted on three sieve sizes of 63 µm, 50
µm and 45 µm. The flotation variables of reagent dosage and pH value were kept constant in
each case at 3 ml, and 8.5 respectively. Kerosene (which is the standard reagent for graphite)
was used as collector, MIBC as frother and sodium silicate as depressant. Experimental
studies focused on investigating the effect of particle size on separation performance. The
decrease in particle sizes resulted in increase in percentage grade; this explained the
phenomenon that as size reduces materials is liberated. It was observed that the highest fixed
carbon (FC) on the concentrates was obtained at 50 µm sieve size as well the highest fixed
carbon percentage of 68.60%. The value of 2.17 and 1.86 were obtained as ratio of
concentration and enrichment ratio respectively.

16
 Experimental results on varying sieve size.
80

70
Graphite content (FC.%)
68.6 67.6
65.4
60

50

40

30

20

10 9.42
6.31
0 1.8
63 50 45
Sieve size (µm)

Concentrate Tailings

The following chart shows flotation test result obtained by varying kerosene collector, dosage
at 2 ml, 3 ml, and 4 ml. The flotation variables of sieve size, MIBC, sodium silicate and pH
value were kept constant through-out at 50 µm, 3 ml, 3 ml and 8.5 respectively. The
experimental result showed that the percentage grade decreased as the amount of dosage was
increased. Meanwhile, the optimum dosage of collector was 2 ml, which gave 63.22% of fixed
carbon in the concentrate and a recovery of 91.02%. The value of 2.52 and 1.74 were obtained
as ratio of concentration and enrichment ratio respectively.

Experimental results on varying kerosene (collector).

70
63.22
Graphite content (FC.%)

60
55.82
50

40 38.26
30

20

10
6.79 7.27 6.32
0
2 3 4
Kerosene (ml)

Concentrate Tailings

17
The following chart shows flotation test result obtained by varying MIBC as a frother in 2 ml,
3 ml, and 4 ml. The flotation variables of sieve size, collector, sodium silicate and pH value
were kept constant through-out as 50 µm, 2 ml, 3 ml and 8.5 respectively. Furthermore, the
results showed that the highest percentage of the fixed carbon in the concentrate was 79.02%
and obtained at 2 ml, with recovery of 82.75%. The value of 2.72 and 2.18 were obtained as
ratio of concentration and enrichment ratio respectively.

Experimental results on varying MIBC (frother).

90

80 79.02

70
Graphite content (FC.%)

60 61.86
55.33
50

40

30

20

10 10.06 10.81
8.56

0
2 3 4
MIBC (ml)

Concentrate Tailings

The following chart shows flotation test result obtained by varying the sodium silicate as a
depressant at 2 ml, 3 ml, and 4 ml. The flotation variables of sieve size, collector, MIBC and
pH value were kept constant through-out as 50 µm, 2 ml, 2 ml and 8.5 respectively. Following
the experimental details, the result showed highest percentage of fixed carbon in the
concentrate 88.86% at 3 ml and recovery of 82.82%. The value of 3.33 and 2.45 were obtained
as ratio of concentration and enrichment ratio respectively.

18
 Experimental results on sodium silicate (depressant).
100
90 88.86
Graphite content (FC.%) 85.35
80
70 70.55
60
50
40
30
20
10 7.55 9.39 6.32
0
2 3 4
Sodium silicate (ml)

Concentrate Tailings

The following chart shows flotation test results obtained by varying the pH value at 8, 8.5,
and 9. The flotation variables of sieve size, collector, MIBC and sodium silicate were kept
constant through-out as 50 µm, 2 ml, 2 ml and 3 ml respectively. The result at pH of 8.5 gave
86.16% fixed carbon in the concentrate and a recovery of 83.15%, as the optimum Ph value
for beneficiating graphite by flotation processes. The value of 3.21 and 2.38 were obtained as
ratio of concentration and enrichment ratio respectively.

Experimental results on varying pH.

100

90
86.16
80
Graphite content (FC.%)

79.2 77.85
70

60

50

40

30

20

10 9.47 9.38
6.32
0
8 8.5 9
Sodium carbonate (ml)

Concentrate Tailings

19
 CHAPTER 06
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 CONCLUSION

The study evaluated the amenability of the graphite to froth flotation as a concentration
method considering three factors (particle size, reagent dosage (frother, depressant and
collector) and pH value) at three different levels.. Flotation test, using optimum concentration
parameters, this yielded clean graphite concentrate of 95.4% fixed carbon from 36.2% with
recovery of 75.2%. Therefore, the result of the study has shown that the recommended
recovery grade of graphite for processing plant design has been achieved, as reported by The
Lindi Jumbo Project Ltd to be at least increased by 10% of fixed carbon in the final graphite
concentrate.

20
6.2 RECOMMENDATION

Together with the application of the results of the study so as to increase the recovery of the
graphite, its recommended to consider the following parameters:

Reagent Optimization: Adjust the type and dosage of reagents, i.e collector, frother, depressant
and pH value to 2 ml, 2 ml, 3 ml and 8.5 respectively.

Feed materials particle size: article size 50 µm

Operating Parameters: Control pulp density, and impeller speed to 25% solids and 1500rpm
respectively so as to optimize flotation kinetics and froth stability.

21
 REFERENCES
911Metallurgist. (2023, Augost 22). Retrieved from 911 Metallurgist:
[Link]
Andrew. Scogings, & Daryl. Evans. (2019). Graphite. In Robert. C. Dunne, SME Mineral
Processing and Extractive Metallurgy (pp. 1766-1773). Society for Mining,
Metallurgy, and Exploration. SME. doi:ISBN 978-0-87335-385-4
Bulatovic, S. M. (2015). Handbook of Flotation Reagents: Chemistry, Theory and Practice
(Vols. 1-3). Peterborough, ON, Canada: SBM Mineral Processing and Engineering
Services LTD, Elsevier B.V. doi:ISBN: 978-0-444-53083-7
D. V. Suba, R. (2016). Mineral and coal processing calculations. Tayor and Francis.
doi:ISBN:978-1-138-62662-1
Habashi, F. (2001). A Textbook of Hydrometallurgy. MCtallurgie Ehractive QuCbec . doi:ISBN
2-980-3247-7-9 (second edition)

Jordan. (2022). Optimal Graphite Ore Processing Making the Most of Graphite. Elsevier.
jxscmachine. (2018, December 20, august 20). factors affecting froth flotation. Retrieved
from jxsc: [Link] [Link]
Wakamatsu, T., & Numatai, Y. (1991). FLOTATION OF GRAPHITE. Minerals Engineering,
iv(7-11), 975-982. doi:0892-6875/91
Wills, B. A., & Napier-Munn, T. (2016). Mineral Processing Technology. New York: Elsevier
Science & Technology Books.

22