1273 4. THE TRADITIONAL GEOMETALLURGICAL METHOD: FROM GUS TO GMUS Before presenting the Block Geometallurgical Model as proposed in this paper, we will review the traditional geometallurgical method, based on metallurgical tests from composites. Table 1 – Comparison between the most common methods of mineralogical characterization Method Results Unit cost US$ xÎ(2,5) Execution time per sample Execution of 5,000 samples FTNIR Spectrometry Adjusted semi-quantitative “bulk” mineralogical analysis X Tens of seconds 7 days X Ray Diffraction Quantitative “bulk” mineralogical analysis X00 Tens of minutes 100 days Optical microscopy with automatic image analysis Modal analysis of ores and gangues; intergrowths, ore liberation, encapsulations, etc. X00 Several tens of minutes 180 días QEMSCAN, TESCAN, ZEISSMineralogic, etc. Fully automated microchemical, mineralogical and intergrowth analysis X000 Hours 325 days Table 2 – Structural and textural characterization Scale Domain Tools Main application Megascopic Rock mass Geological mapping. Fracture type and fracturing density Optimization of blasting and primary crusher performance DDH Core % RQD Macroscopic DDH or RD Geometallurgical logging Blasting and comminution optimization. Definition of geometallurgical units Microscopic Hand specimens and polished-thin sections Optical microscopy with automatized image analyzer software. Electronic microscopy Mineralogical modal analysis; mineral intergrowths, ore liberation and identification of minerals carrying penaized elements Sub-microscopic Electronic microscopy (SEM/EDS or WDS, QEMSCAN, TESCAN, etc.) For submicroscopic, structural, solid solution and colloidal occurrence of Au, Ag, As, Sb, etc.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2