Asian Journal of Chemistry Vol. 22, No.

4 (2010), 3292-3298

Study on the Gravity Processing of Manganese Ores

U. MALAYOGLU
Department of Mining Engineering, Division of Mineral Processing,
Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey
Fax: (90)(232)4530868; Tel: (90)(232)4127501; E-mail: [email protected]

Manganese ores from Sindirgi Balikesir region, Kinik district, Turkey

are low grade types and need beneficiation to utilize them in ferroman-
ganese and chemical industry. Mineralogical and chemical characteriz-
ation of ores from this region indicated their susceptibility to manganese
enrichment. In this study, the optimum gravity beneficiation method
parameters for the production of marketable concentrates from Sindirgi,
Balikesir, Turkey manganese ore were investigated. A final concentrate
containing 47 % Mn and 20 % SiO2 was produced by the application of
the most appropriate beneficiation conditions with ca. 64 % metal
recovery. Furthermore, it was found that the concentrates containing
52.62 % Mn, with lower silicate ratio for chemical purposes can also be
recovered.

Key Words: Manganese ores, Gravity separation.

INTRODUCTION
Manganese is a little-known element other than to a small circle of technical
specialists who are predominantly metallurgists and chemists. Yet, it is the fourth
most used metal in terms of tonnage, being ranked behind iron, aluminum and
copper.
The history of manganese in the 20th century has been a stream of new processes
and metallurgical/chemical applications developed with a significant impact on
markets as diverse as beverage cans, agricultural pesticides and fungicides and
electronic circuitry used in consumer products1.
The different needs of manganese have therefore caused a great deal of attention
to be devoted to improve recovery from its ore. Approximately 94 % of all manganese
ore is consumed in the manufacture of steel, primarily as ferromanganese and
silicomanganese and other minor alloy-related industries. The other 6 % is used by
the non-alloying industries, including the chemical, paint, fertilizer and battery
industries2,3. There are numerous other applications of manganese oxide and manga-
nese salts for this purpose can come from ore, oxides, carbonates and even metallic
manganese. The economically important manganese minerals include: the oxides
pyrolusite, psilomelane, braunite and manganite; the silicate piemontite and the
carbonate rhodochrosite. The most important ores consist of manganese dioxide in the
Vol. 22, No. 4 (2010) Gravity Processing of Manganese Ores 3293

form of pyrolusite, psilomelane and wad, usually with variable amounts of iron oxides.
Ores containing 5-10 % Mn are called manganiferous iron ores, those containing
10-35 % Mn are ferruginous manganese ores, whereas those with more than 35 %
Mn are manganese ores. Manganiferous iron ores and ferruginous manganese ores
are also referred to as manganiferous ores. The major production is4,5 from sources
with ca. 15 % Mn to more than 50 % Mn.
The various end-uses of manganese have different ore requirements giving rise
to the classification of manganese ore into metallurgical, chemical and battery grades.
Metallurgical grade material has about 38-55 % Mn and may differ from chemical
grade ore only in physical form. Chemical and battery grade ores are often categorized
by their MnO2 content, which is typically in the range of 70-85 % (44-54 % Mn).
Although many manganese occurrences are known in which the limited size of
these deposits make them marginal to sub marginal. Other large deposits are not
economically exploitable due to the low concentration of manganese. The third
consideration and of prime importance, are the impurities associated with the manga-
nese mineralization. Due to the diversity and complexity of manganese formations,
the impurities are many in number and complex in nature. Following is a broad
generalization of types of impurities: (a) Metallic impurities: e.g., iron, lead, zinc,
copper, arsenic and silver minerals. (b) Non-metallic impurities such as sulfur and
phosphorous mineral. (c) Volatiles, i.e., water, carbon dioxide and organic matters.
Primary factors in the evaluation of deposits manganese are the amenability of
material to beneficiation and the price projection over the life of the necessary
capital investment. Raw manganese ore may be upgraded by flotation, heavy medi-
um or high-intensity magnetic separation. Manganese ores and concentrates are
purified by several methods6.
Now a days, few manganese operations in some milling plants are more compli-
cated than washing, screening, jigs, tables and in a few instances, flotation. Now it
is not only necessary to increase the manganese content, but also to decrease the
percentage of impurities. Because each deposit is distinctly different from most
other deposits, no single process is applicable to all of the ores.
EXPERIMENTAL
The low grade manganese ore from Sindirgi/Balikesir/Turkey was used in the
study. The samples were taken from different locations of the ore deposit and the
storage area containing the previous productions. Mineralogical microscopically
studies were carried out in Dokuz Eylul University in the Ore Dressing Division
showed that manganese is present as pyrolusite, psilomelane and manganite. The
main iron minerals present are hematite and limonite. The samples are intimately
associated with gangue minerals that include chromites, calcite and quartz materials.
The mean values of the wet chemical analysis showed that the sample had the
following composition: 18.58 % Mn, 0.82 % Fe, 1.02 % Al2O3 and 62.85 % SiO2 in
addition to sulphides and moisture.
3294 Malayoglu Asian J. Chem.

General procedure: The sample was crushed below 15 mm size using a jaw
crusher. The crushed ore was subjected to screen/metal analysis. The results of the
screen/metal analysis showed that about 88 % of the Mn content is above 1 mm
particle size. For this reason, it was decided to classify the material as the coarse
(+1 mm) and fine (-1 mm) ore samples before using in the concentration tests. The
coarse material was subjected to jigging experiments and the material below 1 mm
was treated with shaking table.
Detection method: Elemental composition of the samples was determined by
using wet chemical analysis technique and an AnayltikJenaAG novAA 330 atomic
absorption spectrometer.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The material was subjected to screen/metal analysis to determine MnO, Al2O3,
Fe2O3 and SiO2 contents of the each particle size fraction. The results were presented
in Table-1. As can be seen from the Table-1, 88 % of the Mn content is above 1 mm
particle size. The coarse material (more than 1 mm size) was used in the jigging
experiments. The remaining less than 1 mm size material was later used in shaking
table tests.
TABLE-1
RESULTS OF THE SCREEN/METAL ANALYSIS
Particle size Weight % Distribution (%)
(mm) (%) Mn Al2O3 Fe SiO2 Mn Al2O3 Fe2O3 SiO2
+12.5 07.62 26.16 0.69 0.65 52.26 10.73 5.14 6.02 6.34
12.50 -9.500 16.07 19.54 0.86 0.75 62.95 16.90 13.50 14.64 16.10
9.500-4.750 35.91 17.83 0.88 0.56 64.43 34.47 30.86 24.60 36.81
4.760-3.350 11.26 17.34 1.37 0.81 63.90 10.51 15.07 11.07 11.45
3.350-2.000 09.08 15.14 0.96 0.80 65.16 7.40 8.51 8.86 09.41
2.000-1.000 08.68 17.33 1.18 1.04 66.17 8.10 10.00 11.00 09.14
1.000-0.500 04.65 17.15 1.33 1.42 63.02 4.29 6.04 8.03 04.66
0.500-0.315 01.89 18.88 1.35 1.79 61.84 1.92 2.49 4.13 01.86
0.315-0.212 01.21 19.06 1.63 1.88 59.98 1.24 1.93 2.76 01.15
0.212-0.106 01.36 21.02 1.75 1.96 58.02 1.54 2.32 3.25 01.26
0.106-0.075 01.46 21.47 1.85 1.95 55.54 1.69 2.64 3.47 01.29
0.075-0.063 00.35 24.31 1.85 2.35 37.37 0.46 0.63 1.00 00.21
0.063 00.46 29.90 1.93 2.09 43.69 0.74 0.87 1.17 00.32
Total 100 18.58 1.02 0.82 62.85 – – – –

Jig concentration: The tests were conducted by using a mineral jig. The material
was classified into narrow size fractions before using in the experiments to minimize
the effect of particle size.
In the first experiment, +10 mm particle size fraction was used. The results
were presented in Table-2. As can be seen from the Table-1, a concentrate assaying
about 32 % Mn was obtained with 48.83 % yield and about 75 % recovery. The
middling grade was 15.12 % and the recovery of the middling was about 16 %. The
tailing is mostly consisted of SiO2 %.
Vol. 22, No. 4 (2010) Gravity Processing of Manganese Ores 3295

TABLE-2
RESULTS OF THE JIG CONCENTRATION TEST
OF THE +10 mm PARTICLE SIZE FRACTION
Weight Grade Fractional recovery
Products
(%) Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 % Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 %
Concentrate 48.83 32.59 0.61 5.14 43.11 74.75 47.88 65.11 34.02
Middling 23.10 15.19 0.65 3.32 71.42 16.48 24.14 19.89 26.66
Tailing 28.07 6.65 0.62 2.06 86.66 08.77 27.98 15.00 39.31
Feed 100 21.29 0.62 3.86 61.87 – – – –

The second experiment was performed using 0.8-1.0 mm particle size fraction.
The products were analyzed again and the results were given in Table-3.

TABLE-3
RESULTS OF THE JIG CONCENTRATION TEST
OF THE 10-8 mm PARTICLE SIZE FRACTION
Weight Grade Fractional recovery
Products
(%) Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 % Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 %
Concentrate 24.53 50.11 0.65 4.29 11.51 37.53 22.83 26.35 06.80
Middling 25.42 42.17 0.86 4.58 25.46 32.73 31.30 29.15 15.58
Tailing 50.05 19.47 0.64 3.55 64.41 29.75 45.87 44.49 77.62
Feed 100 32.76 0.70 3.99 41.53 – – – –

The concentrate Mn grade was increased to 50.11 % in this experiment. The

yield percentage was decreased to 24.53, whereas the recovery of Mn was achieved
as 37.53 %. The middling grade was determined as 42.17 %, the Mn recovery of
this product was found as 32.73 %.
5-8 mm particle size fraction was also subjected to jigging experiments. The
results were included in Table-4.

TABLE-4
RESULTS OF THE JIG CONCENTRATION TEST
OF THE 8-5 mm PARTICLE SIZE FRACTION
Weight Grade Fractional recovery
Products
(%) Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 % Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 %
Concentrate 28.84 40.45 1.25 7.43 28.53 59.23 13.69 34.33 13.30
Middling 22.84 18.85 4.13 3.43 64.32 21.86 35.83 12.55 23.75
Tailing 48.32 07.71 2.75 6.86 80.59 18.91 50.47 53.11 62.95
Feed 100 19.70 2.63 6.24 61.86 – – – –

The Mn grade of the feed material was 19.70 % for this experiment and it was
increased to 40.45 % after the jig separation. The weight percentage of the concentrate
was 28.84, Mn recovery was found as 59.23 %. A middling assaying 18.85 % Mn
was obtained with 21.86 % recovery.
3296 Malayoglu Asian J. Chem.

The fourth experiment was done by using 3-5 mm particle size fraction. A high
grade concentrate was obtained in this experiment (Table-5).

TABLE-5
RESULTS OF THE JIG CONCENTRATION TEST
OF THE 5-3 mm PARTICLE SIZE FRACTION
Weight Grade Fractional recovery
Products
(%) Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 % Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 %
Concentrate 25.01 52.62 2.77 3.46 07.18 45.05 30.78 18.33 03.96
Middling 21.28 45.11 4.14 5.14 15.58 32.86 39.15 23.17 07.31
Tailing 53.71 12.02 1.26 5.14 74.93 22.10 30.07 58.49 88.73
Feed 100 29.22 2.25 4.72 45.36 – – – –

A concentrate containing 52.62 % Mn was produced with 45.05 % Mn recovery

in this experiment. Middling grade was found to be quite high (45.11 %). Total
recovery of the concentrate and middling was reached to 77 %.
The last group of jigging tests was performed using 1-3 mm particle size fraction
and the results were presented in Table-6.

TABLE-6
RESULTS OF THE JIG CONCENTRATION TEST
OF THE 3-1 mm PARTICLE SIZE FRACTION
Weight Grade Fractional recovery
Products
(%) Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 % Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 %
Concentrate 35.27 39.53 1.22 5.91 31.23 69.51 40.66 18.70 17.64
Tailing 64.73 9.45 0.97 2.89 79.43 30.49 59.34 81.30 82.36
Feed 100 20.06 1.06 2.30 62.43 – – – –

A concentrate containing 39.53 % Mn was produced in the experiment. The

concentrate recovery was achieved as 69.51 %. Concentrate yield percentage was
found as 35.27 %.
Shaking table concentration: A laboratory scale Wilfley shaking table was
used in the shaking table concentration tests. The material was classified into narrow
size fractions before using in the experiments to minimize the effect of particle
size.
In the first experiment, 0.5-1.0 mm particle size fraction was used. The results
were presented in Table-7. The Mn grade of the feed material was very low (13.53 %).
A concentrate assaying 34.47 % Mn was obtained from this material with 55.73 %
Mn recovery. The middlings except the first middling can be considered as tailing
due to their low Mn content.
0.3-0.5 mm particle size fraction was used in the second shaking table concen-
tration test. The results were given in Table-8.
Vol. 22, No. 4 (2010) Gravity Processing of Manganese Ores 3297

TABLE-7
RESULTS OF THE SHAKING TABLE CONCENTRATION TEST
OF THE 1-0.5 mm PARTICLE SIZE FRACTION
Weight Grade Fractional recovery
Products
(%) Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 % Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 %
Concentrate 21.87 34.47 1.84 5.72 35.16 55.73 33.56 19.23 10.63
Middling 1 07.49 15.35 1.50 5.37 68.67 08.50 09.37 06.18 07.11
Middling 2 28.65 07.65 0.93 9.49 83.19 16.20 22.22 41.81 32.93
Middling 3 27.43 06.68 1.21 6.63 84.56 13.55 27.68 27.96 32.05
Tailing 14.56 05.59 0.59 2.15 85.92 06.02 07.16 04.81 17.29
Feed 100 13.53 1.20 6.50 72.37 – – – –

TABLE-8
RESULTS OF THE SHAKING TABLE CONCENTRATION TEST
OF THE 0.5-0.3 mm PARTICLE SIZE FRACTION
Weight Grade Fractional recovery
Products
(%) Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 % Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 %
Concentrate 16.90 46.53 2.55 5.57 23.94 30.17 24.99 15.67 07.80
Middling 1 07.13 42.55 1.00 6.63 22.57 11.64 04.13 07.87 03.10
Middling 2 24.88 27.65 1.87 6.63 52.36 26.39 26.98 27.46 25.12
Middling 3 23.14 22.78 1.20 5.41 53.97 24.55 25.09 25.54 23.36
Tailing 27.95 06.77 1.16 5.04 75.34 07.26 18.80 23.45 40.61
Feed 100 26.07 1.72 6.01 51.86 – – – –

The results showed that it is possible to obtain a concentrate containing 46.53 %

Mn with 30.17 % recovery. Middling grades were higher for this experiment, especially
the first middling grade was very high (42.55 %).
The last experiment was carried out by using less than 0.3 mm particle size
fraction. Table-9 presents the results of this experiment.

TABLE-9
RESULTS OF THE SHAKING TABLE CONCENTRATION TEST
OF THE -0.3 mm PARTICLE SIZE FRACTION
Weight Grade Fractional recovery
Products
(%) Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 % Mn % Al2O3 % Fe % SiO2 %
Concentrate 12.45 43.54 2.61 5.03 20.71 28.36 23.01 10.85 04.13
Middling 1 10.92 22.35 1.32 5.51 55.46 12.77 10.21 10.42 09.71
Middling 2 24.36 17.93 0.75 6.75 66.94 22.85 12.94 28.48 26.15
Middling 3 20.62 16.26 1.17 3.54 68.41 17.54 17.08 12.64 22.62
Tailing 31.65 11.17 1.64 6.86 73.65 18.49 36.76 37.61 37.38
Feed 100 19.12 1.41 5.77 62.36 – – – –

A concentrate containing 43.54 % Mn with 28.36 % recovery was produced in

this experiment. The middling grades were close to the feed grade. The first middling
grade was the highest; however it was still very low (22.35 % Mn).
3298 Malayoglu Asian J. Chem.

Conclusion
The increases in the demand and marketing prices of the manganese concen-
trates are promoting the production of manganese from ore deposits today. There is
no high-grade manganese ore deposit in Turkey. Turkey is manganese importer for
now. The plants which produces manganese alloys needs high grade Mn and there
is no such producer which can meet this demand. Iron and steel plants require
manganese ores containing 28-35 % Mn. The presented study can provide an alterna-
tive for these plants to meet their Mn need. Lack of a stable vein mineralization
may cause changes in grade and quality of the produced raw ore. This may require
using specific mining and mineral processing operations. According to the results
of the jig separation tests; the use of 3-8 mm particle size fraction produced the
highest-quality concentrates. The use of selective crushing and the application of
hand picking for the coarse gangue particle removal would be useful. Jig concen-
tration can be applied after the secondary crushing operation. It is recommended to
store -3 mm particle size fraction for the later concentration in shaking tables. 64 %
of the fed material was obtained as a concentrate assaying 45-47 % Mn in this
study.
REFERENCES
1. IMNI, http://www. http://www.manganese.org/about_mn/introduction (2008).
2. R.A. Holmes, Manganese Minerals, Industrial Minerals and Rocks, Society for Mining, Metal-
lurgy and Exploration, edn. 6 (1994).
3. L.A. Corathers, US Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook (2004).
4. T.S. Jones, Manganese, Minerals Yearbook Vol. 1, Metals and Minerals, US Bureau of Mines
(1992).
5. T.S. Jones, Manganese, Mineral Commodity Summaries, US Bureau of Mines, January (1995).
6. H.J. Charles, Manganese, Industrial Minerals and Rocks, Society for Mining, Metallurgy and
Exploration, edn. 5 (1983).

(Received: 11 November 2009; Accepted: 4 January 2010) AJC-8270