Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

Influence of matrix type on WHIMS performance in the magnetic processing T

of iron ores
⁎
Keith Quast , William Skinner
Future Industries Institute, University of South Australia, Mawson Lakes, South Australia 5095, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although the commercial beneficiation of iron ores by magnetic separation uses well established technology and
Hematite equipment, there are still some fundamental and applied questions that have not been addressed in current
WHIMS published documentation. The main aspects investigated in this paper included the magnitude of the applied
Effect of matrix magnetic field, the effects of various matrices and the effects of the particle sizes of the materials. The wide range
Particle size
of recoveries of hematite particles to the magnetic fraction was attributed to their mineralogical characteristics
and particle sizes. The use of various expanded metal matrices had significant effects on the recoveries of the
hematite to the magnetic fraction, which is one of the innovative aspects of this study. The use of a fine expanded
metal matrix with its many sharp edges and corners enhanced the localised magnetic field intensity, giving much
higher recoveries of hematite to the magnetic products. The use of the fine expanded metal matrix to the pro-
cessing of a very low-grade commercial tailing sample suggested an enhancement factor of approximately ten
compared to a commercially available magnetic separator that uses a grooved laminated rotor. The quantitative
analysis of the effects of the matrix for enhanced recovery of fine hematite particles determined experimentally
should lead to improved performance of commercial high intensity magnetic separators.

1. Introduction and Linkson (1979); Arvidson and Fritz (1985); Watson et al. (1985);
Miller et al. (1993); Malyi et al. (1997); Xiong (1997, 2006);
Any substance when placed in a magnetic field will be affected in Stadtmuller and Fawell (2000); Tang et al. (2008); Sherrell and Nevens
some way. When a substance is placed in a convergent magnetic field it (2010); Fujita et al. (2014) and book chapters e.g. Bronkala (1980);
will experience a force in one direction or another. A diamagnetic Oberteuffer and Wechsler (1980); Lawver and Hopstock (1985); Geist
substance is repelled along the lines of force to a region of lower field and Bronkala (1986); Murray (1986); Cohen (1986); Arvidson and
intensity, whereas a paramagnetic substance is attracted along lines of Norrgran (2014), Xiong et al. (2015); Chen and Xiong (2015); Gupta
force to a region of higher field intensity. Paramagnetism is the result of and Yan (2016) and Norrgran and Mankosa (2019). Norrgran and
the presence of permanent atomic or electronic magnetic moments. The Mankosa (2019) also contains a decision tree to guide the reader to the
origin of magnetism is very complex and relates to the motion of the choice of the most appropriate equipment for a given application. It can
electrons in the atoms of the substances able to be used as magnets and therefore be seen that magnetic separation for the recovery of values
to the way that the atoms are in their crystal structure. The magnetic from ores has been a subject of interest to mineral processing practi-
force acting on a magnetic particle in a fluid is proportional to the tioners and has been documented over the last seventy years.
magnitude of flux density and its gradient. It is the main aim of this paper to investigate the application of Wet
It is not the purpose of this paper to describe the various theories of High Intensity Magnetic Separation (WHIMS) to iron ores containing
magnetic separation as applied to mineral separation for ores. These predominantly hematite. WHIMS and High Gradient Magnetic
have been elucidated in detail in standard mineral processing texts e.g. Separation (HGMS) machines employ high intensity electromagnets
Gaudin (1939); Richards and Locke (1940); Taggart (1945, 1951); and a flux-converging matrix (Norrgran and Mankosa, 2019). These
Pryor (1965); Tarjan (1986); Kelly and Spottiswood (1989); Hayes separators are used for the recovery of fine, paramagnetic materials.
(1993); Woollacott and Eric (1994); Fuerstenau and Han (2003); Wills Technically, WHIMS is distinguished from HGMS by the direction of
and Finch (2016); conference papers e.g. DeVaney (1960); Carpenter slurry flow being perpendicular to the line of magnetic flux rather than
(1964); Naguib and Dyrenforth (1972); Schonert et al. (1977); Thayer parallel. In practical terms, WHIMS has come to refer to any

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K. Quast), [email protected] (W. Skinner).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2020.106346
Received 19 August 2019; Received in revised form 10 March 2020; Accepted 18 March 2020
Available online 01 April 2020
0892-6875/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

continuous-feed carousel type wet magnetic separator, whereas HGMS Table 1

is associated with the canister-type filter that is batch operated. Selected magnetic susceptibility data for iron-containing materials.
Siame et al. (2017) reported results obtained using an Eriez model Material Value Units Reference
L4 laboratory magnetic separator, the same machine as used in the
current study. Unfortunately, they reported magnetic field strengths six Iron 2.1617 B/H* Crane (1902)
Magnetite 1.4669 B/H* Crane (1902)
times greater than the actual values, because the machine is only cap-
Hematites 1.0242–1.0081 B/H* Crane (1902)
able of field strengths of < 2 T, not 12 T. Their iron ore came from Magnetite 40.18 Fe = 100 Gaudin (1939)
Zambia and contained 34.18% Fe and 31.1% SiO2. Mineral liberation Hematite 1.32 Fe = 100 Gaudin (1939)
required milling the ore to all passing 32 µm. Two matrices were used, Magnetites 0.12–3.07 Volume B/H Taggart (1945)
wire mesh, as in the current study and a pipe matrix. Both Fe grade and Hematites 0.00011–0.0011 Volume B/H Taggart (1945)
Hematites 44–888.3 × 106 cgs units Lawver et al. (1968)
recovery to the magnetic product increased with increasing magnetic
Hematite 4.64 Fe = 100 Macdonald (1973)
field intensity from 0.3 to 1.0 T. Pulp density was limited to 2.5% with Hematite ≥20.6 cm3/g Lawver and Hopstock
higher values leading to clogging in the collection box and hence lower (1974)
Fe recovery. The slurry flow rate was 7 L/min. Higher Fe grades and Goethite ≥26 cm3/g Lawver and Hopstock
(1974)
recoveries were obtained when the pipe matrix was used compared
Hematites 23–39 × 10−6 emu/g Pastrana and
with the wire matrix. They described a two-stage process where the ore Hopstock (1977)
was ground to a particle size of ~ 25 µm, the primary magnetic con- Hematite 152 × 10 −6
emu/g Dobby and Finch
centrate was dewatered and processed under the same conditions which (1977)
generated a product containing 67.07% Fe at a recovery of 83.41%. Specularite 0.25 × 10−6 m3/kg Lawver and Hopstock
(1985)
It is the purpose of this study to investigate the effects of various
Magnetites 9–1500 cm3/g Tarjan (1986)
aspects of mineralogical and operational characteristics using a WHIMS Hematites 100–2600 cm3/g Tarjan (1986)
for the recovery of hematite from various iron ores, paying particular Magnetites 20,000–110,000 × 10−8 m3/kg Hunt et al. (1995)
attention to the effects of the magnitude of the applied magnetic field, Hematites 10–760 × 10−8 m3/kg Hunt et al. (1995)
the effects of various matrices and the effects of particle sizes of the Goethites 26–280 × 10−8 m3/kg Hunt et al. (1995)
Magnetites 625–1156 × 10−6 m3/kg Xiong et al. (2015)
minerals. The innovative finding was the quantitative enhancement of Hematites 0.6–2.16 × 10−6 m3/kg Xiong et al. (2015)
hematite recovery using various matrices, knowledge of which could be Specularite 3.7 × 10−6 m3/kg Chen and Xiong
used to address difficulties in effective application of magnetic se- (2015)
paration to the commercial recovery of particularly minerals containing Magnetite 390,000–1,116,000 × 10−9 m3/kg Tripathy et al. (2017)
Hematite 250–3800 × 10−9 m3/kg Tripathy et al. (2017)
iron.
Goethite 250–400 × 10−9 m3/kg Tripathy et al. (2017)
Hematite 4.06 × 10−4 m3/kg Abaka-Wood et al.
2. Literature review (2019)
Goethite 6.55 × 10−4 m3/kg Abaka-Wood et al.
The references in the literature review are generally in chron- (2019)

ological order to show the development of magnetic separation tech-

N.B. *B/H is the ratio of magnetic induction: magnetic field intensity as mea-
nology and equipment with time. sured by the force when material is placed in a known magnetic field.
Magnetic separation of hematite using high intensity dry magnetic
separation has been reported by Palasvirta (1959). He presented data treating 190 tph of spiral tailings at Wabash Mines (Beech-Jones et al.,
for a coarse-grained specular hematite ore from Quebec ground to all 1979).
passing 1.7 mm. Metallurgical results were exceptionally good, with Other studies and reviews have been published by Thayer and
concentrate grades as high as 67% Fe and iron recoveries in the range Linkson (1979); Corrans and Svoboda (1985); Yang (1988) and Wang
91.5 to 97.5% being obtained after 3 or 4 passes. During the 1960s, the et al. (1992). The development of recent WHIMS machines with feed
history and operation of a number of magnetic separators for the pro- rates up to 1400 tph are now available (Ribeiro and Ribeiro, 2013).
cessing of iron ores have been documented by Dewan and Pradhan Matrix blocking has been eliminated using a special rotating screen
(1960); DeVaney (1960, 1985) and Sundelin (1962). The classic re- (Riberio and Ribeiro, 2015). A recent review on iron ore beneficiation
ference on magnetic separation was published by Oberteuffer (1974) which includes magnetic separation has been published by Ripke et al.
which describes the physics of magnetic separation, effects of particle (2019) which can be used to provide up to date information on this
size, the various forces acting on particles in magnetic fields and major topic. A number of flow sheets for operating concentrators have been
types of magnetic separators. This is an excellent summary of magnetic included in their review.
separation fundamentals and applications at that time. Iannicelli (1979) A more detailed literature review of the parameters used in the
pointed out that the removal of iron oxides from kaolin and other in- current test program is given below.
dustrial mineral ores was enhanced by increased residence time in the
magnetic field.
A detailed review of the magnetic separation of minerals has been 2.1. Magnetic susceptibility of minerals
published in two monographs by Svoboda (1987, 2004). He stated (p.
42, 1987), “Hematite (α-Fe2O3) is a much studied and little understood Some selected magnetic susceptibility data have been summarised
material”. Svoboda (1987, 2004) also stated that the magnetic prop- in Table 1. One of the earliest attempts to quantify the magnetic sus-
erties of hematite exhibit large variations and depend strongly on the ceptibility of iron-containing materials was published by Crane in 1902.
sample preparation, concentration of impurities and other variables. He According to Pryor (1965), the following are the main influences on the
gave a range of magnetic susceptibilities for hematite varying from 500 magnetic susceptibility of mineral grains:
to 3800 × 10−9 m3/kg. For an accurate prediction of the results for
magnetic separation, variations in magnetic susceptibility with field • Impurities mechanically held in the grain of the particle.
strength, particle size, history and origin of the sample must be con- • Dissolved impurities.
sidered. Modest magnetic inductions of 0.2–0.5 T have been shown to • Grain size of the crystal complex.
be effective in producing high recoveries of hematite coarser that
10 µm. The installation of Jones magnetic separators to recover fine This leads to one of the main factors involved in the current test
hematite (< 75 µm) from a feed assaying 36% Fe was successful in work was to examine the effects of mineralogy and particle size on the

2
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

Table 2
Magnitude of applied magnetic field in hematite separation.
Material Separator Matrix Applied field (T) Reference

Hematite: quartz 1:1 Carpco 12.5 mm steel balls 1.5–2.2 Thayer and Linkson (1979)
Hematite: quartz 1:1 Carpco Stainless steel wool 1.5–2.2 Thayer and Linkson (1979)
Taconite ore N.S. 6 mm steel spheres 0.5 Hopstock and Colombo (1980)
Taconite ore N.S. Stainless steel wool 1.0 Hopstock and Colombo (1980)
Ramin iron ore Wedge type canister Balls and stainless-steel wool 1.15 Weissberger and Zimmels (1983)
Hematite N.S. N.S. 1.3–1.8 Murray (1986)
Hematite and gangue N.S. N.S. 1.2–2.2 Yang (1988)
Hematite: quartz 1:1 SALA HGMS Stainless steel metal 1.00 Wang et al. (1992)
Hematite ore Readings WHIMS Grooved rotor 1.4 Miller et al. (1993)
Gravity tailings SLon VP HGMS N.S. 1.0 Xiong (2008)
Oolitic iron ore SLon-500 N.S. 0.85 Niu et al. (2008)
Hematite tailings Readings WHIMS Grooved rotor 0.5, 1.0 Quast and Quast (2010)
BHQ ore Box-Mag Rapid 0.5 mm grid plate 0.3–1.02 Das et al. (2010)
Sishen ore SLon 100 Stainless steel rods 0.6–1.3 Dworzanowski (2010)
Hematite ore slimes Outokumpo Oy 6 mm balls 1.2 Haran et al. (2012)
Hematite ore slimes SLon 100 1 mm grid plate 0.15–0.7 Umadevi et al. (2013)
Hematite HGMS Expanded metal 1 mm thickness 0.5–1.0 Fujita et al. (2014)
Hematite ore fines Rapid N.S. 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 Suthers et al. (2014)
Hematite ore Box Mag Rapid N.S. 1.3 Rath et al. (2014)
Aswan iron ore Carpco N.S. 0.5–1.0 Omran et al. (2014)
Hematite ore fines N.S. Grooved plate 0.4–1.4 Jena et al. (2015)
Pilbara tailings Jones WHIMS Grooved plate 0.8–1.3 Steinberg et al. (2015)
Hematite ore Box Mag Rapid N.S. 0.75–1.6 Rath et al. (2016)

N.B. N.S. means Not Stated.

magnetic behaviour of a wide range of iron-containing minerals. 2.3. Effect of matrix

The function of the matrix is to amplify the background magnetic

2.2. Magnitude of applied magnetic field field, produce localised regions of extremely high gradient and provide
collection sites for paramagnetic particle capture (Norrgran and
The efficiency of hematite separation will be affected by the mag- Mankosa, 2019). As the slurry flows through the magnetised matrix, the
nitude of the applied magnetic field. Some reported values for the ap- paramagnetic particles are pinned. The non-magnetic particles flow
plied fields used in the separation of hematite are given in Table 2. through the matrix unaffected. The paramagnetic particles are re-
Some other references where the matrix was not stated are summarised covered when the magnet is de-energised and they are flushed from the
in Table 3. matrix. The matrix must have a high degree of open area to provide
Liu et al. (2014) found that the optimum conditions for upgrading slurry flow without physical entrapment. The matrix is selected based
their iron ore was a primary grind at 60% passing 75 µm and 1.5 T on the particle size distribution of the ore. It should be coarse enough to
followed by a secondary grind of the coarse concentrate at 71% passing allow the largest particle to pass through unimpeded, yet fine enough to
44 µm and a magnetic field strength of 1.0 T. A WHIMS RK/CSQ- generate high magnetic field gradients and provide sufficient collection
50 × 70 magnetic separator was used to upgrade their ore from a Fe sites.
content of 38% to a final product containing 48.5% Fe at 94% recovery. Naguib and Dyrenforth (1972) published a graph of magnetic field
Abaka-Wood et al. (2019) showed how the recovery of hematite intensity (in kilogauss) for various diameter spheres in a Carpco
increased with increasing magnetic field intensity using an Eriez WHIMS. Increasing the diameters of the spheres from 6 to 22 mm
WHIMS, the same instrument used in the present study. Although Fe caused a doubling of the magnetic field intensity. The choice of matrix
recovery increased as the magnetic field strength was increased, Fe is critical for efficient operation. Hopstock (1979) reported a flow sheet
grade was reduced, with a major change in the grade-recovery curve for treating oxidised taconite ore using WHIMS. The primary separation
noted at a field strength of 0.56 T. used a WHIMS at a magnetic field strength of 0.5 T and 0.6 cm spheres.
The non-magnetics were reground and subjected to two stages of se-
paration at 1 T using coarse steel wool. The final product contained
63.5% Fe at a recovery of 73.1%.
Thayer and Linkson (1979) investigated the effects of using either
Table 3
12.5 mm steel balls or stainless-steel wool as matrix materials to se-
Suggested operating conditions for magnetic concentration of iron-containing
parate a synthetic mixture of liberated hematite and silica sand in the
materials.
ratio of 1:1 using a Carpco WHIMS. Using a magnetic field strength of
Material Separator Value Units Reference 2.2 T, concentrate grades of ~66.5% Fe at recoveries of > 98% Fe were
Hematite WHIMS 1.3–1.8 Tesla Israelson (1978)
realised. When the stainless-steel wool was used, severe filtration and
Magnetite N.S. 0.0001–0.1 Tesla Cited by Murray (1986) entrapment occurred within the packing. A maximum packing density
Hematite N.S. 1.3–1.8 Tesla Cited by Murray (1986) of 2% was required to avoid “disastrous entrapment”.
Goethite N.S. 1.5–1.8 Tesla Cited by Murray (1986) The Mekhanobrchermet Institute in the USSR developed a grooved-
Hematite Frantz 0.1–0.3 Amperes Rosenblum and Brownfield
screens matrix which incorporated expanded metal grids that was
(1999)
Goethite Frantz 0.4–0.5 Amperes Rosenblum and Brownfield claimed to have the following advantages (Malyi et al., 1997):
(1999)
Hematite
Hematite
Carpco
WHIMS
0.4–2.2
0.95
Tesla
Tesla
Gokgoz and Demirel (2000)
Pan et al. (2012)
• An increase of the gradient of the magnetic field in the separation
zone as a result of the introduction of screens with a large number of
sharp edges.
N.B. N.S. means not stated.

3
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

• An increase in the magnetic induction in the separation zone as a the configuration of the rod matrix for pulsating HGMS. Mohammadi
result of the introduction of the ferromagnetic material into the et al. (2014) reported the enhancement of the magnetic field intensity
zone. by using either expanded metal or grooved plates compared to the field
• The self-cleaning of the matrix due to the vibrations of the screens without the matrix. Expanded metal only marginally increased the
by the reversal of the polarity in the matrix. measured field intensity over the range of 0.2 to 1.4 T, but the grooved
plate showed a significant increase in field intensity e.g. at a current of
Svoboda (1981a) evaluated a number of steels as matrix materials in 12 A, the measured magnetic field intensity increased from ~ 0.8 T to
the form of rods for the capture of hematite at various applied fields. 1.2 T with the use of the grooved plate.
Increasing the applied field increased the yield of hematite, with some A recent review of the materials, geometry, size and arrangement of
materials giving a linear relationship, and with others showing an the matrix elements in HGMS has been published by Ge et al. (2017),
asymptotic approach to a maximum for applied fields between 0.2 and which can be consulted for up to date information on this topic. The use
0.6 T. of a screw thread rod matrix has shown to be beneficial in the recovery
Svoboda (1985) investigated the use of a large number of matrices of fine hematite from tailings (Li et al., 2018). Other analytical tech-
in a Mintek magnetic separator for treating a Witwatersrand leach re- niques including Finite Element mapping (Yuan et al., 2018) and ex-
sidue containing gold and uranium. The matrices tested were balls, steel tended particle capture models (Wang et al., 2019) can be used to en-
wool, expanded metal, woven mesh, screens, knitmesh and grooved hance recovery of weakly magnetic materials.
plates. It was found that the optimum recovery and selectivity of se-
paration were obtained at a ratio of particle size to matrix-element size 2.4. Effect of particle size of feed material
ranging from 200 to 300. The use of these matrices also resulted in a
low degree of entrapment of coarser particles, and that the magneti- Dobby and Finch (1977) reported that increasing the particle size
sation of the matrix played a minor role, contrary to the theoretical required a lower applied magnetic field intensity for the same recovery
predictions. of magnetics. For example, hematite with a particle size of 8 µm re-
According to Svoboda (1994), although increasing the magnetic quired a flux density of 0.4 T for 50% recovery, but hematite particles
field strength can increase the performance of a magnetic separator sized at 16 µm only required 0.1 T for the same recovery. Flow rate of
using a single collector, in the case of a multiple collector matrix, an fluid was 1 cm/second. This gave an approximately linear relationship
increase in the magnetic field either does not improve the efficiency of between recovery and log (field strength × particle size).
HGMS, or, in some cases, can have a detrimental effect on the perfor- Thayer and Linkson (1979) found similar metallurgical grades and
mance of the magnetic separator. This is because the extrapolation of recoveries for a synthetic mixture of 1:1 liberated hematite: silica sand
the single particle-single collector model to a multiple collector situa- for sizes between 100 and 25 µm when using 12.5 mm steel balls in a
tion is not permissible in the case of HGMS. Carpco WHIMS with a magnetic field strength of 2.2 T. When very fine
Stadtmuller and Fawell (2000) have reported that the matrix con- (< 25 µm) particles were used, concentrate grades and Fe recoveries
centrates the background magnetic field to produce points of very high were lower than when coarser feeds (> 25 µm) were used. Nesset and
magnetic intensity and gradient. A typical amplified field produced by Finch (1980) developed a model to investigate the fine size limit of
the matrix was suggested to be approximately three times that of the hematite recovery using HGMS. For hematite particles sized below
background field, provided the matrix has not reached magnetic sa- 38 µm, at a magnetic field strength of 0.7 T, a stream velocity of 10 cm/
turation. Saturation depends on the matrix material, but approximately second was possible for successful recovery. For the same sized hema-
1.7 T is typical of magnetic stainless steel. The main parameter to tite particles at a magnetic field strength of 0.3 T, the stream velocity
consider when selecting a matrix is the product particle size range if must be reduced to 5 cm/second for their recovery. In the same pub-
blocking of the matrix is to be avoided. lication, Hopstock and Colombo (1980) were able to collect 50% of
Svoboda (1987, 2005) reported tables showing typical values of the 5 µm hematite using stainless steel wool in their WHIMS.
gradient of the magnetic field in magnetic separators. Some typical Svoboda (1981b) using theoretical modelling determined the var-
values of T/m are given here: Davis Tube, 10–40; belt separator, 1–10; iation of threshold flocculating magnetic field with particle diameter
wire mesh (1 mm), 6 × 103; steel wool (HGMS), 2.5 × 104; steel balls for hematite and found that the field strength increased significantly as
(WHIMS), 1–2 × 103; expanded metal, 4 × 103 and grooved plates, the particle diameter was reduced from 40 to 10 to 2 µm. Murray
2 × 103. This clearly shows that the nature of the matrix has an in- (1986) suggested that particle sizes for effective processing in WHIMS
credible effect on the magnetic field intensity used during operation of should be between approximately 10 and 500 µm. For HGMS the ap-
the magnetic separator. Various matrices also provide different filling propriate size range for the feed can be between < 1 and 100 µm.
factors, varying from 0.5 to 0.8 for grooved plates, spheres 0.50 to 0.64, Bagster (1987) determined the forces due to drag, gravity and the
expanded metal 0.12 to 0.27, down to 0.01 to 0.05 for steel wool. The magnetic field on hematite particles of various sizes from a magnetised
matrix used in the test work described in this paper can be described as wire in a magnetic field and found that the optimum particle size range
either expanded metal or coarse or fine mesh, depending on preference. was from 100 µm to 1 mm in a wet magnetic separator.
Depending on the type of matrix, there will be a conversion factor Svoboda (1987) has discussed the effects of particle size on the ef-
between the magnetic field strength H (in A/m) and magnetic induc- ficiency of magnetic separation. He described the dynamic behaviour of
tion, measured in Tesla (T). a particle in terms of magnetic force, gravitational force, viscous drag
Baik et al. (2010) modelled the magnetic forces on a particle in a force and interparticle interactive forces within the slurry medium.
magnetic field and proposed that they were enhanced by a factor of 160 These are summarised below.
times with the addition of a stainless-steel matrix in a HGMS machine.
Sherrell and Nevens (2010) suggested that the inclusion of a magnetic • Magnetic force varied with the square of the particle size,
matrix would only increase the magnetic field strength at 1 T to 1.8 T. • Gravitational force varied with the third power of the particle ra-
Chen et al. (2013) compared the performance of using 1 mm and 2 mm dius,
rod matrices for the recovery of ultrafine (78.43% passing 30 µm) he- • Viscous drag or hydrodynamic force varied with the first power of
matite in a pilot HGMS separator. It was concluded that the enhanced the particle radius, and
performance of the 1 mm rod matrix was due to its stronger magnetic • Interparticle forces depended on the proportion of magnetic parti-
capture and its powerful manipulation of the ultrafine particles at a cles, type of matrix and other variables.
lower energising cost. Subsequent work by Chen et al. (2014, 2016)
showed how the use of slice matrix analysis was effective in optimising Svoboda (1987) concluded that the net result of the interactions of

4
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

these forces was that gravitational force dictated the behaviour of large a 3.8 mm matrix gap in their WHIMS. Values of magnetic field intensity
particles, and for fine particles, the hydrodynamic and interparticle varied from 0.2 T for 14 µm particles to 1.4 T for 2 µm particles showing
forces were dominant. the significant influence of mineral particle size on the strength of the
Miller et al. (1993) reported previously published data by Forssberg magnetic field required for their capture. Dworzanowski (2014) found
and Kostkevicius (1982) which clearly showed that the recovery of iron that treating the < 10 µm hematite together with the coarser
using various commercial WHIMS units decreased for particle sizes less (10–200 µm) hematite significantly improved the recovery of the <
than 20 µm. Magnetic separation tests at pilot scale on several Western 10 µm hematite when compared to treating only the < 10 µm frac-
Australian hematite-containing ores revealed the following. tion. The magnetic separator used was a SLon 100. The optimum con-
ditions established at laboratory scale, when tested at pilot plant scale,
• Raising the magnetic intensity initially increased iron recovery, but resulted in similar results.
at high intensities, grade was reduced as middling particles were In summary, it would appear that the following parameters are
drawn into the concentrate. critical in analysing and optimising the performance of high intensity
• A scavenger stage on the first pass nonmagnetic fraction was ne- magnetic separators for the recovery of fine materials with low mag-
cessary to obtain a satisfactory recovery on higher grade feed. netic susceptibility: the inherent magnetic susceptibility of the mate-
• Wash water changes could be used to obtain small adjustments in rials and how these are modified by any inclusions, mineralogy and
grade and recovery. particle size effects, the magnitude of the applied magnetic field, the
• Performance was only slightly affected by variations in the pulp mechanisms operating in the magnetic separator and the crucial effect
density of the feed. of the matrix on the efficiency of separation. These parameters have
• Desliming the feed at 10 µm was necessary for feed density control been investigated and discussed in this paper.
and it also improved metallurgical performance by effectively re-
ducing the feed rate. 3. Equipment and materials

Based on the successful pilot plant trials, a 16 pole Readings WHIMS 3.1. Equipment
unit was incorporated in the full plant operation, with > 80% Fe re-
covery realised down to particle sizes of 25 µm. Below 7 µm, Fe re- Two magnetic separators were used in this test work. The main test
coveries were much lower, approximately 35%. The hematite had a work was conducted using an Eriez laboratory scale WHIMS model L4-
magnetic susceptibility of 1.95 × 10−6/m3 due to its 30% goethite 20 with a rectangular chamber measuring 25 × 50 mm in cross-section
content. and 230 mm long. Two different matrices were used: a coarse mesh
A subsequent publication by Wang and Forssberg (1994) stated that matrix and a fine mesh matrix (see Figs. 1 and 2). These can be con-
antiferromagnetic susceptibility for their hematite samples was in- sidered as expanded metal matrices as described by Svoboda (1987).
dependent of particle size. They also showed a dramatic reduction in Fe The other magnetic separator used was a “Gill” 4-pole wet magnetic
recovery to the magnetic fraction for both Sala HGMS and Jones separator manufactured by Readings of Lismore, New South Wales,
WHIMS for particle sizes below 10 µm. Svoboda and Fujita (2003) Australia. This is essentially a medium intensity wet magnetic separator
showed a linear decrease in the magnetic force generated by various with a maximum field strength of approximately 1.4 T (Lawver and
magnetic separators as a function of particle size on a hematite particle Hopstock, 1974). This had been used to generate the data for the
by using log–log scales on the axes. Arol and Aydogan (2004) reported magnetic separation of a tailing stream from a North American iron ore
that magnetite recovery using a Davis Tube magnetic separator de- plant which has previously been discussed in a paper presented to the
creased from 90% to 50% as the mean particle size was reduced from XXV International Mineral Processing Congress by Quast and Quast
30 to 4 µm. (2010). Some of the tailing material originally processed using both a
Seifelnassr et al. (2012) used a Readings High Intensity Magnetic Carpco laboratory induced roll dry magnetic separator and a Gill
Separator to beneficiate Wadi Halfa iron ore from Sudan. Best results magnetic separator was processed using the Eriez WHIMS and reported
were obtained with material sized between 150 and 20 µm due to better in the current study. This data was included to show the beneficial
liberation when compared to deslimed coarser size fractions. Increasing effect of wet over dry magnetic separation for low grade feeds.
the magnetic field intensity decreased the Fe grade of the product due
to locked particles reporting to the concentrate. The rougher con-
centrates were cleaned using the optimum conditions determined
during the roughing stage to produce a final concentrate containing
63.5% Fe at a recovery of 67.7%.
Qui et al. (2013) used a SLon HGMS to beneficiate a Chinese oolitic
iron ore after the removal of strongly magnetic material at 0.12 T.
Grinding the material to various percentages passing 74 µm revealed
that the grade of the concentrate steadily reduced with increasing fi-
neness of grind. Recovery fluctuated with increasing fineness due to the
enrichment of iron in the low-intensity concentrate. The lower grades
and recoveries of iron in the finest grind (98.4% passing 74 µm) was
due to the slurry becoming “muddy” due to overgrinding.
Arvidson (2013) suggested that the optimum particle size range for
processing ores by WHIMS was between 1 and 1,000 µm. Sadawy
(2013) reported that Fe grade was reduced with both decreasing par-
ticle size and increasing magnetic field intensity (0.2–1.4 T) for dry
magnetic separation of Aswan iron ore. This ore was classified as oo-
litic, and comprised hematite, goethite, quartz and kaolinite. Recovery
of iron increased with both particle fineness and magnetic field
strength.
Mohammadi et al. (2014) plotted a graph showing the magnetic
field intensity required to pin hematite particles of different sizes using Fig. 1. Coarse mesh.

5
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

4. Experimental procedures

4.1. Measurement of sizing distributions

Size fractions for the ABM hematite were obtained by pulverising a

sample of the 150–300 µm fraction for 10 s using a Rocklabs ring mill
and sizing the product. Sizing distributions of the samples were de-
termined by wet screening riffled samples at 38 µm with the material
passing the 38 µm screen wet screened at 20 µm. The material coarser
than 38 µm was dry sized on a nest of screens. Sizing data were plotted
as cumulative weight % passing vs. size as shown in Figs. 3 and 4.
Weight and Fe distributions were determined for the tailing sample
as a function of size (see Fig. 5). The Fe assays for the products for the
tailing fractions were determined by the method of Kolthoff et al.
(1969) which involved digestion of pulverised material using stannous
chloride and hydrochloric acid followed by atomic absorption of the
filtrates using standard methods.

4.2. Determination of magnetic separation behaviour

Fig. 2. Fine mesh.

The main test work was conducted using the Eriez laboratory scale
Demagnetising was conducted using an Eriez model 2DR de- WHIMS model L4-20 fitted with the rectangular chamber. Known
magnetising coil which used an AC current to generate an oscillating weights of samples (typically 5 g) were slurried with water and slowly
magnetic field with a diminishing strength (Kelly and Spottiswood, added to a flowing stream of water at 3.2 L/min above the chamber.
1989). Tests were run in duplicate, with the averages reported in the next
Magnetic susceptibility was measured using a Magnasat magnetic section. The reason for the low weights was the very limited mass of
susceptibility meter supplied by Ultra-Dynamics Pty. Ltd., Corinda, material available for the magnetic separation after the sizing had been
Queensland, Australia. Sample depths were 20 mm, and the meter was conducted. Each data point in Figs. 6–8 represents a different experi-
calibrated against a standard sample of high-grade magnetite, which ment using fresh material. Tests were conducted to encompass the
gave a reading of 5,000 m3/kg × 10−7. magnetic field strengths where the weight percentage to the magnetic
fraction changed, with appropriate increments as shown in Figs. 6–8.
When no mesh was present, indicated field strengths were used over the
3.2. Experimental materials range 0.1–1.7 T (see abscissa in Fig. 6). When there was coarse mesh in
the chamber, the indicated magnetic field strengths varied over the
There were a number of iron-containing materials used in this test range 0.1–0.37 T as shown on the abscissae in Figs. 7 and 8.
work. Some of their properties are listed in Table 4 together with re- Tests were conducted with no mesh present, and with either the
ferences containing more details. Full sizing details are shown in Figs. 3 coarse mesh (or expanded metal) (8 units) or fine mesh (or expanded
and 4. The hematite from Australia Bulk Minerals (ABM) contained metal) (15 units) filling the chamber. The indicated magnetic field (in
95% hematite, 5% goethite and 0.6% Si (Abaka-Wood et al., 2016, T) was calculated by the current applied across the chamber as reported
2017). by the calibration data supplied with the equipment. The non-magnetic
Qualitative X-ray diffraction analysis of the tailing sample indicated fraction was collected while the magnetic field was applied, and the
that it contained quartz (dominant), hematite (sub-dominant) with magnetic fraction recovered by a strong water flush when the magnetic
muscovite and iron manganese oxide hydroxide both being very minor field was switched off. The magnetics remaining in the matrix after the
components of the sample. Recent quantitative X-ray diffraction ana- water flush were recovered by removing the mesh and washing each
lysis of a grab sample revealed that it contained 86.6% quartz, 11.4% α- one individually. The production of the demagnetised sample of mag-
Fe2O3 and 2% potassium aluminium silicate hydroxide (muscovite) netite used the demagnetising coil.
thus supporting the qualitative X-ray diffraction analysis. Spiking the Except for the tailing sample, all proportions to magnetics and non-
sample with 10% zinc oxide revealed that the amorphous content of magnetics were simply calculated by their weights. Iron grades and
this sample was less than 1%. distributions for the products from processing the tailings sample were
calculated by traditional mass and metal balances.

Table 4
Properties of materials used in this test work.
Sample % Fe P80 (µm) Magnetic Susceptibility(m3/kg × 10−7) Reference

Magnetite 65.5 40 4773 Adam et al. (2017)

ABM hematite 150–300 µm 67.9 280 46.6 Abaka-Wood et al. (2016, 2017)
ABM hematite 150–38 µm 67.9 130 57.8 Abaka-Wood et al. (2016, 2017)
ABM hematite < 38 µm 67.9 20 39.6 Abaka-Wood et al. (2016, 2017)
Tailing sample 15 160 55.9 Quast and Quast (2010)
Paraburdoo hematite 69 90 4.1 Quast (2018)
Iron Knob hematite 69.5 65 92.8 Quast (2012b)
Iron Prince hematite 68 90 25.3 Quast (2012b)
Iron Duke #2 (25% goethite 59 85 14.4 Quast (2012a)
Malcolm Creek micaceous 69 32 57.5 Quast (2016)
Iron Knob micaceous 69.4 100 9.5 Quast (2016)

6
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

100

Cum. weight % passing

Magnetite
150-300 um
38-150
< 38 um
Tailing

10
10 1 00 1 00 0
Size (μm)

Fig. 3. Sizing data for magnetite, size fractions of the ABM hematite and the plant tailing.

5. Results 6. Discussion

The first series of tests was conducted using an empty chamber in 6.1. WHIMS with no expanded metal matrix in the chamber
the WHIMS (i.e. no mesh present) at 1.7 T followed by tests using the
various applied magnetic fields for the coarse and fine mesh cases. Fig. 6 shows the differences in magnetic responses for two of the
Results are given in Table 5 and Fig. 6 (data for empty chamber). samples tested to the magnetic field in the absence of a matrix. Under
Magnetic responses for the size fractions of the ABM hematite using these conditions, the material should respond to the indicated magnetic
the coarse mesh are given in Fig. 7 and for the hematite samples in field strength. It has been clearly established that magnetite has a
Fig. 8. higher magnetic susceptibility than hematite (see Section 2 and
A comparison between data obtained previously using the Carpco Table 4). Because of their relatively close proximity to each other,
Induced Roll dry magnetic separator and the Gill wet magnetic se- magnetite particles can become attracted to each other and start
parator (Quast and Quast, 2010) and Eriez WHIMS data is given in forming aggregates of different sizes and shapes. This is especially re-
Table 6. Samples weighing 25 g were used for the WHIMS testing of the levant for fine magnetite particles which have a higher residual mag-
tailing material, with 100 g samples used in the previous testing using netism than coarser particles (Hopstock, 2000; Dworzanowski, 2010).
the Carpco and the Gill magnetic separators. Passing the magnetite through the demagnetising coil produced a
slightly higher magnetic susceptibility, although the effect was mar-
ginal (see Fig. 6).

100
Cum. weight % passing

Paraburdoo
Iron Knob
Iron Prince
Iron Duke #2
Malcolm Ck.
Iron Knob Mic.

10
10 1 00 1 00 0
Size (μm)

Fig. 4. Sizing data for mineral hematites.

7
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

50

40 Weight (%)
Grade (% Fe)
Distribution (% Fe)
Weight (%) or Fe (%)

30

20

10

0
+600 +300 +150 +75 +38 +20 -20

Size (microns)

Fig. 5. Weight % and Fe % for tailing size fractions.

The percentages of magnetics pinned under a magnetic field in- percent of the Iron Knob hematite reporting to the magnetic product is
tensity of 1.7 T with no matrix present for the materials investigated in in keeping with its magnetic susceptibility being approximately double
this study are reported in Table 5. As discussed above, the magnetite that of the other hematites (see Table 4). From Table 2 it is obvious that
sample, even though it contained approximately 5% silica and alumina there is no unique value of magnetic field intensity for the capture of
(Adam et al., 2017), still showed high magnetic susceptibility (see hematite particles, with reported values ranging between 0.3 T and
Table 4), with the amount pinned being approximately 80%. Under the 1.8 T.
same conditions, the hematite samples tested showed little if any Neglecting the small amount of water added in the mineral slurries,
magnetic susceptibility. This is supported by the values of magnetic it is possible to calculate the water velocity in the chamber. The flow
susceptibility reported in Table 4, where hematite values are typically rate of the wash water was constant at 3.2 L/min or 3,200 cm3/min.
one hundred times lower than that for magnetite. The higher weight The cross-section of the chamber was 2.5 × 5.0 cm, i.e. 12.5 cm2. The

100

Magnetite as received

80 Demag Magnetite

ABM 150-300 um hematite

Weight % to magnetics

60

Bars are for 5% errors in each direction

40

20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Indicated magnetic field strength (T)
Fig. 6. Weight % to magnetics for the magnetite (as received and after demagnetisation) and for the 150–300 µm ABM hematite with no mesh in the chamber.

8
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

100

80

Weight % to magnetics

60

150-300 um
38-150 um
40
< 38 um

20

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Indicated magnetic field strength (T)

Fig. 7. Weight % to magnetics for sized samples of the ABM hematite using the coarse mesh in the chamber.

superficial water velocity is therefore 256 cm/min or 4.3 cm/sec. This is Table 4 even though the value of the magnetic susceptibility of the
below the value of 10 cm/sec as modelled by Nesset and Finch (1980) medium sized ABM hematite was slightly higher than that of the coarse
for the capture of < 38 µm hematite particles under a magnetic field fraction. Svoboda (1981b, 1987) concluded that hydrodynamic and
intensity of 0.7 T, and under 5 cm/sec at 0.3 T, hence the flow rate of interparticle forces dominate when fine particles are processed in a
the wash water was not a limiting factor in the capture of the fine flowing stream of water. This is especially true for hematite parti-
hematite particles. Lawver and Hopstock (1974) suggested a maximum cles < 20 µm in size, where the liquid drag force is higher than the
fluid velocity of 5 cm/sec to provide a high recovery of 10 µm locked influence of the applied magnetic field (Roy, 2012). Dobby and Finch
hematite-quartz particles. Siame et al. (2017) used a flow rate of 7 L/ (1977) also reported that increasing the fluid velocity required an in-
min for processing hematite with an average particle size of 25 µm creased applied magnetic field for successful magnetic separation.
using an Eriez model L4 machine, the same as used in the current test Thayer and Linkson (1979) showed that the ratio of entrapment forces/
work. detachment forces varied with average particle size and superficial fluid
The size of the hematite particles also has a bearing on their capture. velocity which varied from 2 to 10 cm/s for particle sizes between 20
The coarsest ABM hematite particles were captured more than the in- and 100 µm.
termediate sized particles, with no capture of the finest particles (see The fact that particles of the two micaceous hematite samples were
Tables 4 and 5). This agrees with the data published in Section 2.4 of not captured at all, even though one of them was relatively coarse (Iron
the Literature Review and the magnetic susceptibilities reported in Knob), with a magnetic susceptibility much lower than the Malcolm

100

80

Paraburdoo
Weight % to magnetics

Iron Knob Mic.

60 Iron Knob
Iron Prince
Malcolm Ck.
Iron Duke #2
40

20

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
Indicated magnetic field strength (T)

Fig. 8. Weight % to magnetics for various hematite samples using the coarse mesh in the chamber.

9
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

Table 5 The amounts of hematite particles captured in the chamber of the

Weight percentage of magnetics under different matrix conditions. WHIMS with the coarse sheets of expanded metal are plotted in Fig. 8
Sample % to magnetics % to magnetics % to magnetics and summarised in Table 5. The trends shown at the lowest indicated
(no matrix) @ (coarse mesh) @ (fine mesh) @ magnetic field strengths do not follow the trends shown in the empty
1.7 T 0.1 T 0.1 T chamber as discussed above. In the case of the coarse matrix, the most
magnetically susceptible hematite was the Iron Prince sample which
Magnetite 77% (86% on 92 92
demag. sample)
showed some susceptibility when used in the empty chamber (see
150–300 µm ABM 10 70 93, 98 Table 5) even though its measured magnetic susceptibility was rela-
150–38 µm ABM 6 62 88 tively low (see Table 4). The next most susceptible was the micaceous
< 38 µm ABM 0 26 88 Iron Knob sample with a low measured magnetic susceptibility, which
Tailing sample 0 44 80
showed no susceptibility when passed through the empty chamber (see
Paraburdoo 0 20 97
Iron Knob 25 55 94 Table 5). According to Miles (1955) the Middleback Range hematites
Iron Prince 13 77 90 can the considered slightly magnetic, containing inclusions of magne-
Iron Duke #2 1 39 90 tite or martite (hematite pseudomorphs after magnetite), so the pre-
Malcolm Creek 0 55 89
sence of some magnetic susceptibility is anticipated. The Iron Duke #2
micaceous
Iron Knob 0 73 97
sample containing 25% goethite required a high applied magnetic field
micaceous to achieve 80% capture in the chamber, as indicated by its low mag-
netic susceptibility (see Table 4). This is because goethite is known to
be less magnetically susceptible than hematite (e.g. Lawver et al., 1968;
Creek sample suggests that there were no intergrowths of more mag- Pastrana and Hopstock, 1977; Svoboda, 1987; Hunt et al.,1995) al-
netic material in these samples, as suggested by Lawver and Hopstock though there can be some overlap of susceptibility depending on the
(1985). It is also contrary to the data reported by Chen and Xiong specific properties of the minerals. The lowest percentage to the mag-
(2015) who reported that specularite had a higher mass magnetic sus- netic product was obtained using the Paraburdoo sample, which also
ceptibility than hematite. According to Ayres (1963), Malcolm Creek had the lowest value of magnetic susceptibility (see Table 4). The
hematite ore is considered to be a non-magnetic, crystalline and coarse- magnetic susceptibility of hematite is also known to depend on the
grained ore which has been reported to be amenable to concentration magnitude of the applied magnetic field (Nesset and Finch, 1980).
by flotation and dry magnetic separation methods. This was based on
previous work reported by Bollen (1962) who produced a magnetic 6.2.2. Using the fine expanded metal matrix
concentrate containing 62% Fe at a recovery of 92.2% Fe using an in- The resultant magnetic susceptibilities using different matrix ma-
duced roll magnetic separator. Bollen (1962) also reported that Mal- terials have been reviewed in Section 2.3, and this discussion will be
colm Creek ore contained < 0.1% Fe recoverable using a Davis Tube confined to the effects of the two matrix materials used in this study.
magnetic separator. A review of the regional geology, previous in- These are depicted in Figs. 1 and 2 and are both constructed from ex-
vestigations and a preliminary design of a concentrator to process this panded metal with different open areas. The data are summarised in
material using magnetic separation has been published by Nichol Table 5 and show the expected results of much higher magnetics cap-
(1978). The material used in this project was part of the magnetic ture using the fine matrix at an applied magnetic field strength of 0.1 T
concentrate produced by Dewsnap (1974), cited in Nichol’s review. compared with the data obtained using the coarse matrix. In fact, more
This material had previously been upgraded using the Gill 4-pole than 90% of the particles were pinned using the fine matrix compared
magnetic separator located at the University of South Australia, with values between 20 and 73% for the coarse matrix. From Section
Mawson Lakes campus. 2.3, the inclusion of matrix material can have a very dramatic effect on
the magnetic field inside the chamber, with increases of many orders of
6.2. WHIMS with expanded metal matrix in the chamber magnitude reported (e.g. Svoboda, 1987, 2005). The presence of edges
and sharp corners will magnify the magnetic field strength at local sites,
6.2.1. Using the coarse expanded metal matrix and these will act as high energy sites where particles can be pinned
The effects of particle size on the capture of particles of the ABM (Norrgran and Mankosa, 2019). According to Wills and Finch (2016),
hematite are shown in Fig. 7 and summarised in Table 5. The reduced an applied field strength of 2 T in a HGMS can produce field gradients
magnetic susceptibility of the fine particles (< 38 µm) is obvious and of up to 14 T/mm due to the presence of a matrix such as ball bearings
supported by the magnetic susceptibility data in Table 4. The magnetic or wire wool. Chen and Xiong (2015) suggest magnetic inductions of
behaviour of particles coarser than 38 µm is quite similar with com- 0.6 T and field gradients of 50 T/m are required to collect weakly
parable values of magnetic susceptibility (see Table 4), so there appears magnetic minerals such as hematite.
to be a significant reduction in magnetic susceptibility for particles finer
than 38 µm. It must be remembered that almost 80% of the < 38 µm 6.2.3. Comparison of data for the tailing sample
particles are < 20 µm (see Fig. 3), so the presence of fines and ul- There was an opportunity to compare the magnetic separation be-
trafines is very detrimental to particle capture as discussed in Section haviour between tailing samples passed through the Carpco dry
2.4. Induced Roll Magnetic Separator (IRMS), the Gill 4-pole magnetic

Table 6
Comparison of Carpco, Gill and WHIMS data for the tailing sample.
Product Weight % to magnetics Fe grade of magnetics (%) Fe distribution to magnetics (%)

Gill 0.5 T 74.2 15.6 77.3

Gill 1.0 T 79.8 16.4 84.5
Carpco IRMS 0.4 T 35.7 18.4 41.5
WHIMS 0.1 T coarse mesh 43.7 18 58
WHIMS 0.1 T fine mesh 79.7 16 89
WHIMS 0.5 T coarse mesh 71.5 17 89
WHIMS 0.5 T fine mesh 89.3 15 97

10
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

separator and the Eriez with two types of matrix material. The equip- nature of the matrix, and this must be chosen carefully to minimise any
ment used covered a wide range of magnetic separators. The Carpco is a issues with blockage of the slurry flow and resistance to abrasion during
dry IRMS unit where there is the potential for non-magnetic fines ad- extended operation.
hering to coarser magnetic particles. It can be and is often used in si-
tuations where there is a lack of water. The Gill magnetic separator is a
medium intensity wet magnetic separator which has found use in beach 7. Conclusions
sand processing for the recovery of ilmenite, and the Eriez WHIMS, with
the possibility of field intensities up to 2 T, is used for the recovery of The magnetic susceptibility of a magnetite sample, as measured by
weakly magnetic materials. its weight percent to the magnetic product in the absence of any matrix,
The results for processing a tailing sample containing only 15% Fe was much greater than any hematite samples, as would be expected
with a significant amount of < 20 µm slimes have been reported from their relative values published in the literature and reported here.
previously (Quast and Quast, 2010). The distributions of Fe values and The lower magnetic susceptibility of fine particles compared to coarse
particle sizes are shown in Fig. 5, highlighting that almost 60% of the Fe particles of the same sample was indicated by their lower weight per-
is in the < 38 µm size fraction, comprising approximately 35% of the centages to the magnetic product under the same magnetic field in-
total weight. In fact, almost 40% of the Fe is in the < 20 µm size tensity. This was confirmed when coarse expanded metal was in-
fraction. The measured magnetic susceptibility of this sample was re- troduced into the chamber, where significantly higher magnetic fields
latively high (see Table 4) and hence much of the material reported to were required for the same recovery of fine (P80 of 20 µm) hematite
the magnetic fraction, but with little increase in Fe grade compared compared to coarser (P80 of 130 µm) hematite. There was a wide range
with the feed. This would suggest that the sample was a tailing from a of recoveries of mineral hematites to the magnetic fraction, which was
gravity circuit, possibly from a spiral. In the previous article (Quast and attributed to their mineralogical characteristics, with the presence of
Quast, 2010), their results were benchmarked against the Mount Wright significant amounts of contained goethite in the hematite requiring
concentrator of Quebec Cartier Mining Company, the development and higher applied field strengths for high recoveries into the magnetic
operation of which has been described by Bourassa (1977); Staff of product. There did not appear to be a strong correlation between the
Mount Wright (1978); Burt (1984); Hyma and Meech (1989) and measured values of magnetic susceptibility of the hematite samples and
Wilson et al. (1990). their recovery into the magnetic fraction. It was established that the
Previous and current data on the magnetic separation character- flow of wash water used did not compromise any recovery of magnetic
istics are reported in Table 6. The Carpco IRMS uses a shaft with particles into the magnetic product. It was possible to compare the
grooves in it to locally concentrate the magnetic field. There was little results of using either coarse or fine expanded metal as matrix material
Fe selectivity between the magnetic and non-magnetic fractions when under known operating conditions. The use of the fine expanded metal
using all these magnetic separators for potentially upgrading this matrix with its many sharp edges and corners would have significantly
sample of low-Fe tailings. The Fe grades of the magnetics and non- enhanced the localised magnetic field intensity, giving much higher
magnetics as well as the feed were very similar in all cases, as reflected recoveries of hematite to the magnetic products. It was postulated that
in the mass and mineral recoveries to the magnetic products. The the use of the fine matrix increased the localised magnetic field by a
higher grade reported for the Carpco magnetic product corresponded to factor of ten compared to that generated in the Gill for the gravity
a low Fe and mass recovery. In dry magnetic separation there is the tailing sample. For the use of the coarse matrix, this comparative value
distinct possibility of fine gangue particles adhering to the surfaces of was lower (approximately by a factor of 4). These data would need to
magnetic particles causing poorer grades and recoveries. Also, the in- be confirmed by larger scale, at least at pilot scale before any definitive
crease in grade of the magnetics from the Carpco separator came at the statements can be made. They do, however, highlight the critical im-
expense of grade. This was the result of deliberately changing the portance of the correct choice of matrix material for efficient operation.
splitter position to increase the concentrate grade.
The Gill magnetic separator uses a grooved laminated rotor for ef-
CRediT authorship contribution statement
fecting the separation, and the magnetic particles adhere to the rotor in
the magnetic field. They are carried around by the rotor, washed in the
Keith Quast: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
field and then flushed off at the null point between the poles. The non-
Validation, Writing - original draft. William Skinner: Resources,
magnetics flow through the magnetic fields and are collected in a se-
Supervision, Writing - review & editing, Project administration.
parate launder. The previous data was reported at two values of applied
magnetic field, 0.5 and 1.0 T, with weight percentages of magnetics of
74.2 and 79.8% respectively. Declaration of Competing Interest
The results shown in Table 6 would suggest an enhancement in
magnetic field of approximately 4 with the WHIMS using the coarse
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
mesh considering the weight percent of material to the magnetics and
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
especially the assay of the magnetic fraction compared with the results
ence the work reported in this paper.
obtained with the Carpco. There is, however, a higher proportion of
both weight percent and Fe distribution to the magnetic fraction in the
case of the WHIMS using the coarse mesh. The weight % of magnetics Acknowledgement
captured at 0.1 T using the fine mesh is virtually identical to that ob-
tained with the Gill at 1 T, with a very similar grade of magnetics, but This work was carried out (in part) at the Microscopy Australia
slightly higher recovery of Fe. Tailing grades for the two tests con- facilities located at the University of South Australia, infrastructure co-
ducted using the Gill were between 12 and 13% Fe. It can then be funded by the University of South Australia, the South Australian State
postulated that the use of fine expanded metal increased the magnetic Government, and the Australian Federal Government NCRIS scheme.
field intensity by an order of magnitude compared with that provided
by the Gill. Using the coarse mesh in the WHIMS at 0.5 T gave a similar
recovery of Fe to that measured at 0.1 T using the fine mesh, but it must Funding
be remembered that these values are for batch testing of small samples,
and the results would need to be verified under at least pilot scale This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
operation. They do, however, emphasise the dramatic effects of the agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

11
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

References Forssberg, K.S., Kostkevicius, N.R., 1982. Comparative pilot scale test with wet high in-
tensity magnetic separation. Erzmetall 35 (6), 285–293.
Fuerstenau, M.C., Han, K.N., 2003. Magnetic and electrostatic separation. Principles of
Abaka-Wood, G.B., Addai-Mensah, J., Skinner, W., 2016. Physicochemical characterisa- Mineral Processing”, Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc., Littleton,
tion of monazite, hematite and quartz minerals for flotation. In: Proceedings, 4th Colorado, pp. 221–244 (Chapter 7).
UMaT Biennial International Mining and Mineral Conference, Tarkwa, Ghana, Fujita, T., Dodiba, G., Yamaguchi, K., 2014. Magnetic separation between the para-
pp. 1–7. magnetic mineral particles by changing the magnetization of the medium. Chapter
Abaka-Wood, G.B., Addai-Mensah, J., Skinner, W., 2017. Selective flotation of rare earth 18 In: Proceedings, XXVII International Mineral Processing Congress, Santiago, Chile,
oxides from hematite and quartz mixtures using oleic acid as a collector. Int. J. Miner. pp. 275–283.
Process. 169, 60–69. Gaudin, A.M., 1939. Magnetic separation. “Principles of Mineral Dressing”, first edition,
Abaka-Wood, G.B., Zanin, M., Addai-Mensah, J., Skinner, W., 2019. Recovery of rare McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York, pp. 424–460 (Chapter XVIII).
earth elements minerals from iron oxide-silicate rich tailings – Part 1: magnetic se- Ge, W., Encinas, A., Araujo, E., Song, S., 2017. Magnetic matrices used in high gradient
paration. Miner. Eng. 136, 50–61. magnetic separation (HGMS): a review. Results Phys. 7, 4278–4286.
Adam, M., Addai-Mensah, J., Begelhole, J., Quast, K., Skinner, W., 2017. Enhancing Geist, E.W., Bronkala, W.J., 1986. Selection and sizing of magnetic concentrating
magnetite concentrate granulation by blending with hematite ore. In: Proceedings equipment. In: Mular, A.L., Anderson, M.A. (Eds.) Design and Installation of
Iron Ore Conference, Perth, Western Australia, Australasian Institute of Mining and Concentration and Dewatering Circuits. Society of Mining Engineers, Littleton,
Metallurgy, pp. 17–23. Colorado, pp. 226–249 (Chapter 15).
Arol, A.I., Aydogan, A., 2004. Recovery enhancement of magnetite fines in magnetic Gokgoz, F., Demirel, H., 2000. Processing of iron oxide minerals as pigment raw material.
separation. Colloids Surf., A: Phyiochem. Eng. Aspects 232, 151–154. In: Ozbayoglu, G., Hosten, C., Atalay, M.U., Hicyilmaz, Arol, A.I. (Eds.) Proceedings,
Arvidson, B.R., 2013. Processing high-grade concentrates from challenging low-grade Mineral Processing on the Verge of the 21st Century, published by A.A. Balkema,
iron ore deposits. Trans. Indian Inst. Met. 66 (5–6), 467–474. Rotterdam, pp. 345–350.
Arvidson, B.R., Fritz, A.J., 1985, New inexpensive high-gradient magnetic separator. In: Gupta, A., Yan, D., 2016. Magnetic and Electrostatic Separation. Mineral Processing
Proceedings, XV International Mineral Processing Congress, Cannes, France, Volume Design and Operations – an Introduction, second ed., Elsevier, pp. 629–687
1, pp. 317–329. (Chapter 17).
Arvidson, B.R., Norrgran, D., 2014. Magnetic separation. In: Anderson, C.G. Dunne, R.C., Haran, N.P., Ravindran, I., Prasad, A.B.K., Devaprasad, A.M., Ram, M., Gundewar, C.S.,
Uhrie, J.L. (Eds.) Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy 100 Years of 2012. Beneficiation and dewatering studies on a sub-grade iron ore sample from
Innovation, Society for Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration, Englewood, Colorado, Orissa, India. In: Proceedings, XXVI International Mineral Processing Congress, New
pp. 223–233. Delhi, India, pp. 1924–1934.
Ayres, D.E., 1963. A review of the mineralogy of some low grade South Australian iron Hayes, P.C., 1993. Selection on the basis of magnetic properties. Process Principles in
ores in relation to beneficiation testing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Minerals and Materials Production, Hayes Publishing Co., Sherwood, Queensland,
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 14-24 August, 1963, pp. 69–91. Australia, pp. 89–97 (Chapter 4.3.3).
Bagster, D.F., 1987. The calculations of force on a weakly magnetic particle in a magnetic Hopstock, D.M., 1979. Wet high-intensity magnetic beneficiation of oxidized taconites,
field. Int. J. Miner. Process. 20, 1–15. Report of Investigations 8363, United States Bureau of Mines, 13p.
Baik, S.K., Ha, D.W., Ko, R.K., Kwon, J.M., 2010. Magnetic field and gradient analysis Hopstock, D.M., Colombo, A.F., 1980. Processing finely ground oxidized taconite by wet
around matrix for HGMS. Physica C 470, 1831–1836. high-intensity magnetic separation. In: Somasundaran, P. (Ed.) Fine Particles
Beech-Jones, M., Eby, T., Muloin, W.H., 1979. The development and operation of a Processing, Volume 2, American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum
WHIMS separator circuit for hematite recovery at Wabash Mines. Canad. Inst. Min. Engineers Inc., New York, pp. 1242–1260 (Chapter 62).
Metall. Bull. 72 (809), 109–117. Hopstock, D.M., 2000. A re-examination of the performance of demagnetizing coils on
Bollen, L., 1962. Malcolm Creek ore beneficiation tests, AMDL report issued to the South finely ground natural magnetite. Int. J. Miner. Process. 59, 45–68.
Australian Government, July 1962, 18p, (unpublished). Hunt, C.P., Moskowitz, B.M., Banerjee, S.K., 1995. Magnetic properties of rocks and
Bourassa, P.J., 1977. History and development of Mount Wright. Canad. Min. Metall. Bull. minerals, published in www.alaska-gold/RF003p0189, pp. 189–203 (accessed July
70 (780), 75–82. 17, 2019).
Bronkala, W.J., 1980. Magnetic separation. Mineral Processing Plant Design. In: Mular, A. Hyma, D.B., Meech, J.A., 1989. Preliminary tests to improve the iron recovery from the
L., Bhappu, R.B. (Eds.), Society of Mining Engineers of the American Institute of -212 micron fraction of new spiral feed at Quebec Cartier Mining Company. Miner.
Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, second ed., New York, USA, pp. Eng. 2 (4), 481–488.
467–478 (Chapter 22). Iannicelli, J., 1979. High intensity, high gradient magnetic separation. In: Somasundaran,
Burt, R.O., 1984. The processing of iron ore. Gravity Concentration Technology. Elsevier, P., Arbiter, N. (Eds.) Beneficiation of Mineral Fines Problems and Research Needs,
Amsterdam, pp. 416–431 (Chapter 21). American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., Edwards
Carpenter, J.H., 1964, Carpco-Amax high intensity wet magnetic separator. In: Brothers Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, pp. 363–379 (Chapter 33).
Proceedings, VII International Mineral Processing Congress, New York, edited by N. Israelson, A.F., 1978. Magnetic separation of minerals, Mining Magazine for September
Arbiter, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York, pp. 399–404. 1978, 211–219.
Chen, L., Qian, Z., Wen, S., Huang, S., 2013. High-Gradient magnetic separation of ul- Jena, S.K., Sahoo, H., Rath, S.S., Rao, D.S., Das, S.K., Das, B., 2015. Characterization and
trafine particles with rod matrix. Miner. Process. Extr. Metall. Rev. 34 (5), 340–347. processing of iron ore slimes for recovery of iron values. Miner. Process. Extract.
Chen, L., Ding, L., Zhang, H., Huang, J., 2014. Slice matrix analysis for combinatorial Metall. Rev.: An Int. J. 36 (3), 174–182.
optimization of rod matrix in PHGMS. Miner. Eng. 58, 104–107. Kelly, E.G., Spottiswood, D.J., 1989. Magnetic separation. Introduction to Mineral
Chen, L., Xiong, D., 2015, Magnetic techniques for mineral processing. In: Tarleton, S. Processing. John Wiley and Sons, pp. 274–290 (Chapter 14).
(Ed.) Progress in Filtration and Separation, Elsevier, pp. 287–324 (Chapter 7). Kolthoff, I.M., Sandell, E.B., Meehan, E.J., Bruckenstein, S., 1969. Quantitative Chemical
Chen, L., Yang, R., Guan, C., Zeng, J., Shao, Y., Huang, L., 2016. Enhanced pulsating Analysis, fourth ed. Macmillan, New York, pp. 832–834.
HGMS of fine hematite with combinative rod matrix. Sep. Sci. Technol. 51 (3), Lawver, J.E., Wright, J.L., Kokal, H.R., 1968. The behaviour of Mesabi iron and silicate
564–568. minerals in 20-kilogauss magnetic fields. Trans. Soc. Min. Eng. AIME 241, 194–203.
Cohen, H.E., 1986. Magnetic separation. In: Wills, B.A., Barley, R.W. (Eds.) Mineral Lawver, J.E., Hopstock, D.M., 1974. Wet magnetic separation of weakly magnetic mi-
Processing at a Crossroads. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 287–315. nerals. Miner. Sci. Eng. 6 (3), 154–172.
Corrans, I.J., Svoboda, J., 1985. Magnetic separation in South Africa. Magn. Sep. News 1, Lawver, J.E., Hopstock, D.M., 1985. Electrostatic and magnetic separation. In: Weiss, N.L.
205–232. (Ed.) Section 6 in “SME Mineral Processing Handbook, Society of Mining Engineers of
Crane, W.R., 1902. Investigations of magnetic fields with reference to ore-concentration. the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers Inc., New
Trans. Am. Inst. Min. Eng. 31, 405–446. York, pp. 6-1 to 6-48.
Das, B., Mishra, B.K., Prakash, S., Das, S.K., Reddy, P.S.R., Angadi, S.I., 2010. Magnetic Li, W., Han, Y., Xu, R., Gong, E., 2018. A preliminary investigation into separating per-
and flotation studies of banded hematite quartzite (BHQ) ore for the production of formance and magnetic field characteristic analysis based on a novel matrix. Minerals
pellet grade concentrate. Int. J. Miner. Metall. Mater. 17 (6), 675–682. 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/min8030094.
DeVaney, F.D., 1960. New developments in the magnetic concentration of iron ores. In: Liu, C.-S., Li, J.-S., Tang, H.-Y., Gao, Y.-W., 2014. Research on mineral processing for high
Proceedings, International Mineral Processing Congress, The Institution of Mining silica low grade hematite ore in Xinjiang. Ironmak. Steelmak. 41 (7), 481–485.
and Metallurgy, London, pp. 675–688. Macdonald, E.H., 1973, Separation of minerals utilising the magnetic and electrical
DeVaney, F.D., 1985. Iron ore, Section 20 in “SME Mineral Processing Handbook”. In: properties of the minerals. Section 6 in “Manual of Beach Sand Mining Practice”,
Weiss, N.L. (Ed.) Society of Mining Engineers of the American Institute of Mining, second edition, Department of Foreign Affairs, Australian Government Publishing
Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers Inc., New York, pp. 20-1 to 20-34. Service, pp. 53–63.
Dewan, H.R., Pradhan, V.S., 1960. Modern trends in iron ore beneficiation. J. Mines Met. Malyi, V.M., Gansenko, T.B., Notovich, G.I., Savchenko, I.M., 1997. Development of high-
Fuels 8 (7), 116–120. intensity magnetic separation for weakly magnetic iron ores. In: Hoberg, H., von
Dewsnap. N.F., 1974, Production of hematite concentrate from ore supplied, Techsearch Blottnitz, H. (Eds.) Proceedings, XX International Mineral Processing Congress,
Inc. report on project No R74/5 (unpublished) cited by Nichol, 1978. Aachen, Germany. Volume 2, pp. 611–620.
Dobby, G., Finch, J.A., 1977. Capture of mineral particles in a high gradient magnetic Miles, K.R., 1955. The Geology and Iron Ore Resources of the Middleback Range Area,
field. Powder Technol. 17, 73–82. Bulletin 33, Geological Survey of South Australia, South Australian Department of
Dworzanowski, M., 2010. Optimizing the performance of wet drum magnetic separators. Mines, 247p.
J. South Afr. Inst. Min. Metall. 110, 643–653. Miller, D.J., James, D.G., Turner, J.H., 1993. Recovery of minus 100 micron hematite by
Dworzanowski, M., 2014. Maximizing haematite recovery within a fine and wide particle- wet, high intensity magnetic separation. In: Proceedings, XVIII International Mineral
size distribution using wet high-intensity magnetic separation. J. South Afr. Inst. Min. Processing Congress, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, pp. 397–404.
Metall. 114, 559–567. Mohammadi, M., Sam, A., Qaredaqi, A., 2014. Providing a model for determining

12
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

magnetic field intensity around constructed “grooved plates” matrix in Golgohar iron Seifelnassr, A.A.S., Moslim, E.M., Abouzeid, A.-Z.M., 2012. Effective processing of low-
ore and steel research institute. In: Proceedings, XXVII International Mineral grade iron ore through gravity and magnetic separation techniques. Physicochem.
Processing Congress, Santiago, Chile, Chapter 18, pp. 94–102. Probl. Miner. Process. 48 (2), 567–578.
Murray, H.H., 1986. Magnetics as a separation process. In: Somasundaran, P. (Ed.) Sherell, I., Nevens, M., 2010. Iron ore- mineral processing overview. In: Proceedings, XXV
Advances in Mineral Processing. Society of Mining Engineers Inc., Littleton, International Mineral Processing Congress, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, pp.
Colorado, pp. 535–544 (Chapter 31). 1227–1234.
Naguib, A.G., Dyrenforth, W.P., 1972. Fundamentals of magnetic separation, Preprint Siame, M.C., Haga, K., Shibayama, A., 2017. Treatment of low-grade iron ore using two
number 72-B-18, AIME Annual Meeting, San Francisco, February, 13p. stage wet high-intensity magnetic separation technique. Int. J. Mater. Metall. Eng. 11
Nesset, J.E., Finch, J.A., 1980. A loading equation for high gradient magnetic separators (11), 735–740.
and application in identifying the fine size limit of recovery. In: Somasundaran, P. Stadtmuller, A., Fawell, S., 2000, Hi Filters to superconducting HGMS: the new genera-
(Ed.), Fine Particles Processing, vol. 2. American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical tion. In: Massacci, P. (Ed.) Proceedings, XXI International Mineral Processing
and Petroleum Engineers Inc., New York, pp. 1217–1241 (Chapter 61). Congress, Rome, Italy, Elsevier, pp. A7-78 – A7-88.
Nichol, D., 1978. Koraleigh micaceous hematite deposit, South Australia, Mineral Staff of Mount Wright, 1978. Quebec-Cartier Mining Company – Mount Wright. In:
Resources Review, South Australian Mines Department, 149, 66–80. Pickett, D.E. (Ed.) “Milling Practice in Canada”, (CIM Special Volume 16), Canadian
Niu, F.S., Bai, L.M., Gao, Z.M., 2008. Study on the beneficiation process flow of refractory Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, pp. 266–268.
oolitic hematite in the Zhangjiakou area. In: Duo, W.D., Yan, S.C., Liang, W.F., Cheng, Steinberg, M., Graham, T., Gerards, M., 2015. Recovery of iron ore fines and ultrafines
Z.L., Long, H. (Eds.) Proceedings, XXIV International Mineral Processing Congress, from tailings by using wet high-intensity magnetic separation- Jones WHIMS. In:
Beijing, China. Volume 1, Science Press, Beijing, pp. 1221–1226. Proceedings, Iron Ore Conference, Perth, Australasian Institute of Mining and
Norrgran, D.A., Mankosa, M.J., 2019. Magnetic separation. In: Dunne, R.C., Kowatra, S. Metallurgy, pp. 191–196.
K., Young, C.A. (Eds.) SME Mineral Processing & Extractive Metallurgy Handbook, Sundelin, L., 1962, The concentration of iron ores, Mine and Quarry Engineering, Part 2
Volume 2, published by Society of Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc., March, pp. 119–128.
Englewood, Colorado, pp. 839-856 (Chapter 6.4). Suthers, S.P., Nunna, V., Tripathi, A., Douglas, J., Hapugoda, S., 2014. Experimental
Oberteuffer, J.A., 1974. Magnetic separation: a review of principles, devices and appli- study on the beneficiation of low-grade iron ore fines using hydrocyclone desliming,
cations. IEEE Trans. Magn., Volume Mag. 10 (2), 223–238. reduction roasting and magnetic separation. Trans. Inst. Min. Metall., Sect. C 123 (4),
Oberteuffer, J.A., Welchsler, I., 1980. Recent advances in high gradient magnetic se- 212–227.
paration. In: Somasundaran, P. (Ed.) Fine Particles Processing, Volume 2. American Svoboda, J., 1981a. High-gradient magnetic separation: a search for a matrix material.
Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers Inc., New York, pp. 1178- Int. J. Miner. Process. 8, 165–175.
1216 (Chapter 60). Svoboda, J., 1985. The selection of a matrix for the recovery of uranium by wet high-
Omran, M., Fabritius, T., Elmahdy, A.M., Abdel-Khalek, N.A., El-Aref, M., Elmanawi, A.E.- intensity magnetic separation, MINTEK report M204, Council for Mineral
H., 2014. Effect of microwave pre-treatment on the magnetic properties of iron ore Technology, 24p.
and its implications on magnetic separation. Sep. Purif. Technol. 136, 223–232. Svoboda, J., 1987. Magnetic Methods for the Treatment of Minerals. In: Fuerstenau, D.W.
Palasvirta, O.E., 1959. High intensity magnetic separation of iron ores. Trans. Am. Inst. (Ed.) (Developments in Mineral Processing, volume 8), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 692p.
Min. Eng. 214, 1244–1248. Svoboda, J., 1981b. A theoretical approach to the magnetic flocculation of weakly
Pan, S.K., Chowdhury, G.M., Sinha, V., Saha, S.K., Rai, S., 2012. Recovery of valuable iron magnetic minerals. Int. J. Miner. Process. 8, 377–390.
ore concentrate particles from the process rejects of the iron ore processing plant of Svoboda, J., 1994. The effect of magnetic field strength on the efficiency of magnetic
Dalli Mines of Sail, India. In: Proceedings, XXVI International Mineral Processing separation. Miner. Eng. 7 (5/6), 747–757.
Congress, New Delhi, India, pp. 4075–4082. Svoboda, J., Fujita, T., 2003. Recent developments in magnetic methods of material se-
Pastrana, J.M., Hopstock, D.M., 1977. Magnetic properties of natural hematite and goe- paration. Miner. Eng. 16, 785–792.
thite. Trans. Soc. Min. Eng. AIME 262, 1–5. Svoboda, J., 2004. Magnetic Techniques for the Treatment of Materials. Kluwer Academic
Pryor, E.J., 1965. Magnetic and electrical separation. “Mineral Processing”, third ed., Publishers, New York 650p.
Elsevier, London, pp. 571–599 (Chapter 19). Svoboda, J., 2005, Magnetic separation in Encyclopedia of Materials: Science and
Quast, K., Quast, B., 2010. Haematite recovery from a tailings stream. In: Proceedings, Technology, Elsevier, pp. 1–7.
XXV International Mineral Processing Congress, Brisbane, Queensland, pp. Taggart, A.F., 1945. Electrical Concentration in “Handbook of Mineral Dressing Ores and
1155–1164. Industrial Minerals, Section 13, pp. 13-01 – 13-47.
Quast, K., 2012a. Effect of 25% goethite on the hydrophobicity and oleate flotation of Taggart, A.F., 1951, Electrical Concentration, Chapter 4 in “Elements of Ore Dressing”,
hematite. Int. J. Min. Eng. Miner. Process. 1 (2), 31–37. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 44-68.
Quast, K., 2012b. Some surface characteristics of six hematite ores from the Middleback Tang, Y.H., Zhu, Y.B., He, J.Q., Spat, A.F., 2008. Study on new technique for advancing
Range area South Australia. Int. J. Min. Eng. Miner. Process. 1 (2), 73–83. recovery of micro-sized hematite by magnetic separation. In: Zuo, W.D., Yao, S.C.,
Quast, K., 2016. Surface chemistry and oleate flotation of three South Australian mi- Liang, W.F., Cheng, Z.L., Long, H. (Eds.) Proceedings, XXIV International Mineral
caceous hematites. Miner. Eng. 85, 123–129. Processing Congress, Beijing, China, Volume 1, pp. 724–728.
Quast, K.B., Surface chemistry and flotation characteristics of several Western Australian Tarjan, G., 1986, Magnetic Separation, Chapter 3 in “Mineral Processing” Volume 2,
hematites. In: Proceedings, Chemeca 2018, Queenstown, New Zealand, 2018, paper Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, pp. 337–378.
197, 12p. Thayer, D.M., Linkson, P.B., 1979. The beneficiation of specular hematite by high in-
Qui, T.S., Zhang, W.X., Fang, X.H., Gao, G.K., 2013. Effect of particle fineness on the tensity magnetic separation. In: Preprint number 79-16, Society of Mining Engineers
finely disseminated iron ore for beneficiation. Powders Grains (AIP Conf. Proc.) 1542, of AIME Annual Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, February, 10p.
1294–1295. Tripathy, S.K., Singh, V., Rama Murthy, Y., Banerjee, P.K., Suresh, N., 2017. Influence of
Rath, S.S., Sahoo, H., Dhawan, N., Rao, D.S., Das, B., Mishra, B.K., 2014. Optimal re- process parameters of dry high intensity magnetic separators on separation of he-
covery of iron values from a low grade iron ore using reduction roasting and magnetic matite. Int. J. Miner. Process. 160, 16–31.
separation. Sep. Sci. Technol. 49 (12), 1927–1936. Umadevi, T., Singh, A.P., Abhishek, K., Suresh, B., Sah, R., 2013. Recovery of iron bearing
Rath, S.S., Dhawan, N., Rao, D.S., Das, B., Mishra, B.K., 2016. Beneficiation studies of a minerals from Beneficiation Plant 2 thickener underflow of JSW Steel Limited. J.
difficult to treat iron ore using conventional and microwave roasting. Powder Miner. Mater. Charact. Eng. 1, 55–60.
Technol. 301, 1016–1024. Wang, Y., Forssberg, E., Pugh, R.J., 1992. The influence of pH on the high gradient
Ribeiro, J.P., Ribeiro, C.H.T., 2013. New mega-sized wet high intensity magnetic se- magnetic separation of < 10 µm particles of hematite and quartz. Int. J. Miner.
parator: a cost-effective solution to reclaim iron ore fines from tailing dams. Revista Process. 36, 93–105.
Escola de Minas 66 (4), 529–533. Wang, Y., Forssberg, E., 1994. The recovery of hematite and chromite fines and ultrafines
Ribeiro, J.P., Ribeiro, C.H.T., 2015. The NoBLOCK Technology. A major breakthrough in by wet magnetic methods, Minerals and Metallurgical Processing, May, 87-96.
Wet High Intensity Magnetic Separation (WHIMS). Revista Escola de Minas 68 (3), Wang, Y., Xue, Z., Zheng, X., Lu, D., Li, S., Li, X., 2019. Effect of matrix saturation
361–366. magnetization on particle capture in high gradient magnetic separation. Miner. Eng.
Richards, R.H., Locke, C.E., 1940. Miscellaneous processes of separation. “Textbook of 139, 105866 doi.org/10.1016.j.mineng.2019.105866.
Ore Dressing”, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, pp. 288–303 (Chapter XIV). Watson, J.H.P., Bahaj, A.S., Boorman, C.H., Rassi, D., 1985. A superconducting high
Ripke, S.J., Poveromo, J., Battle, T.P., Walqui, H., Haselhuhn, H., Larson, M., 2019. Iron gradient magnetic separator with a current carrying matrix. In: Proceedings, XV
ore beneficiation. In: Dunne, R.C., Kowatra, S.K., Young, C.A. (Eds.) SME Mineral International Mineral Processing Congress, Cannes, France, Volume 1, pp. 330–342.
Processing & Extractive Metallurgy Handbook”, Volume 2, published by Society of Weissberger, S., Zimmels, Y., 1983. Studies on concentration and direct reduction of the
Mining, Metallurgy and Exploration Inc., Englewood, Colorado, pp. 1755–1779 Ramim iron ore. Int. J. Miner. Process. 11, 115–130.
(Chapter 12.16). Wills, B.A., Finch, J.A., 2016. Magnetic and electrical separation. In:“Wills’ Mineral
Rosenblum, S., Brownfield, I.K., 1999. Magnetic susceptibilities of minerals, U.S. Processing Technology: An Introduction to the Practical Aspects of Ore Treatment
Geological Survey, Open File Report 99-529, 37p. and Mineral Recovery”, 8th edition, Butterworth Heinmann, Amsterdam,
Roy, S., 2012. Recovery improvement of fine magnetic particles by floc magnetic se- Netherlands pp. 381–407 (Chapter 13).
paration. Miner. Process. Extr. Metall. Rev. 33, 170–179. Wilson, J.M.D., Petruk, W., Cote, C., 1990. A mineralogical evaluation of the spiral circuit
Sadawy, M.M., 2013, Characterization and dry high intensity magnetic separation of at the Mount Wright Concentrator by image analysis. Canad. Min. Metall. Bull. 83
Aswan iron ore. In: Hwang, J.-Y. Bai, C., Carpenter, J., Ikhmayies, S.J., Li, B., (943), 76–83.
Monteiro, S.N., Peng, Z., Zhang, M. (Eds.) Proceedings, Characterization of Minerals, Woollacott, L.C., Eric, R.H., 1994. Part E, Separations based on magnetic and electrical
Metals and Materials. The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, pp. 355–362. properties. In: “Mineral and Metal Extraction an Overview”, Monograph Series M8,
Schonert, K., Supp, A., Dorr, H., 1977. Solenoid-pile separator, a new high intensity South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Johannesburg, South Africa, pp.
magnetic separator with super conductive coils. In: Proceedings, XII International 184-194 (Chapter 5).
Mineral Processing Congress, Sao Paulo, Brazil, Volume 1, pp. 378–395. Xiong, D.-H., 1997. Development and applications of SLon vertical ring and pulsating

13
K. Quast and W. Skinner Minerals Engineering 152 (2020) 106346

high gradient magnetic separators. In: Hoberg, H., von Blottnitz, H. (Eds.) 1, pp. 813–818.
Proceedings, XX International Mineral Processing Congress, Aachen, Germany, Xiong, D., Lu, L., Holmes, R.J., 2015. Developments in the physical separation of iron ore:
Volume 2, pp. 621–630. magnetic separation. In: Lu, L. (Ed.) “Iron Ore: Mineralogy, Processing and
Xiong, D., 2006. SLon magnetic separator promoting Chinese oxidized iron ore processing Environmental Sustainability”, Elsevier Science, pp. 283-307 (Chapter 9).
industry. In: Onal, G., Acarkan, N., Celik, M.S., Arslan, F., Atesok, G., Guney, A., Yang, D.C., 1988. Reagents in iron ore processing. In: Somasundaran, P., Moudgil, B.M.
Sirkecl, A.A., Yuce, A.E., Perek, K.T. (Eds.) Proceedings, XXIII International Mineral (Eds.) Reagents in Mineral Technology”, Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 579-644
Processing Congress, Volume 1. Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 276–281. (Chapter 19).
Xiong, D.H., 2008. SLon magnetic separators applied to beneficiate low grade oxidized Yuan, M., Peng, H., Chen, L., Lei, Y., 2018. Analyze the multiwire magnetic field of HGMS
iron ores. In: Zuo, W.D., Yao, S.C., Liang, W.F., Cheng, W.F., Long, H. (Eds.) by semi-analytical method. Results Phys. 11, 956–963.
Proceedings, XXIV International Mineral Processing Congress, Beijing, China, Volume

14