2586 Li₂O content of the feed material. This discrepancy is attributed to partial acid digestion of silicate-hosted lithium phases, particularly spodumene, leading to a systematic underestimation of total lithium. Therefore, the results are interpreted comparatively rather than absolutely. In this way, to ensure representativeness and comparability among samples with different masses and dilution factors, lithium oxide contents were normalized relative to the feed grade and further evaluated through mass-weighted metal distribution. This approach minimizes the influence of sample heterogeneity and analytical variability, allowing a robust assessment of lithium enrichment and recovery during the separation process. The Li2O grade curve of the sink product is represented in Figure 7. Figure 6 – Li2O Cumulative recovery curve Figure 6 demonstrates a pronounced Li2O enrichment within the S.G 2.80. At this cut density, approximately 54% of the total lithium is recovered, corresponding to a sink mass fraction of 37%. Finally, the cumulative Li2O grade-recovery curve is shown in Figure 7. Figure 7 – Cumulative Li2O grade-recovery curve is shown in Figure 7. 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 Li2O (%) Cut density (g/cm3) 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0 20 40 60 80 100 Cumlative Li2O (%) Li2O Cumulative Recovery (%)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2