2585 anticipated that minerals such as albite, quartz, and microcline, known for their typical specific gravity, would float during this test. Finally, in the S.G. 2.70-2.60 test, a significant proportion of sink material (55.46%) was observed, but a low grade of Li2O (0.06%), Fe2O3 (0.28%), and F (<0.01) was observed. This suggests that most lithium- and iron-silicate mineral particles were recovered in previous tests. On the other hand, the higher Na2O (6.35%) and Si2O (77.68%) contents indicate that the minerals primarily found in the sink product may be albite and quartz. In contrast, the floated product may have recovered microcline mineral particles. Based on the sink-float results, the separability curves were elaborated and are shown in Figures 5– 8. By analysing the cumulative sink mass curve (densimetric curve) and the Li2O cumulative recovery curve (Figures 5 and 6, respectively) in the S.G. 2.90–2.80 range, it is possible to observe that sink mass recovery increases only slightly, from 31.31% to 36.79%. In contrast, there was a large increase in Li2O recovery, from 13.21% to 54.04%, over the same S.G. range. As shown in S.G. 2.70, metallurgical recovery increases with mass recovery (between S.G. 2.70 and 2.60, it increases from 44% to 98%); however, there is no proportional increase in Li2O grade. Figure 5 – Densimetric curve Figure 6 – Li2O Cumulative recovery curve The lithium concentrations determined by ICP-OES are significantly lower than the expected bulk 20 40 60 80 100 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 Cumulative sink mass (%) Cut density (g/cm3) 0 20 40 60 80 100 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 Li2O Cumulative Recovery (%) Cut density (g/cm3)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2